We reviewed human–robot interaction (HRI) participatory design (PD) research with older adults. The goal was to identify methods used, determine their value for design of robots with older adults, and provide guidance for best practices.
Background
Assistive robots may promote aging-in-place and quality of life for older adults. However, the robots must be designed to meet older adults’ specific needs and preferences. PD and other user-centered methods may be used to engage older adults in the robot development process to accommodate their needs and preferences and to assure usability of emergent assistive robots.
Method
This targeted review of HRI PD studies with older adults draws on a detailed review of 26 articles. Our assessment focused on the HRI methods and their utility for use with older adults who have a range of needs and capabilities.
Results
Our review highlighted the importance of using mixed methods and including multiple stakeholders throughout the design process. These approaches can encourage mutual learning (to improve design by developers and to increase acceptance by users). We identified key phases used in HRI PD workshops (e.g., initial interview phase, series of focus groups phase, and presentation phase). These approaches can provide inspiration for future efforts.
Conclusion
HRI PD strategies can support designers in developing assistive robots that meet older adults’ needs, capabilities, and preferences to promote acceptance. More HRI research is needed to understand potential implications for aging-in-place. PD methods provide a promising approach.
BedafS.MartiP.De WitteL. (2019). What are the preferred characteristics of a service robot for the elderly? A multi-country focus group study with older adults and caregivers. Assistive Technology, 31, 147–157.doi:10.1080/10400435.2017.140239029125807
2.
BeerJ. M.FiskA. D.RogersW. A. (2014). Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3, 74–99.doi:10.5898/JHRI.3.2.Beer29082107
3.
BootW. R.CharnessN.CzajaS. J.RogersW. A. (2020). Designing for older adults: Case studies, methods, and tools. CRC Press.
4.
BråthenH.Maartmann-MoeH.SchulzT. W. (2019). The role of physical Prototyping in participatory design with older adults. International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions ACHI, 6, 141–146.
5.
CzajaS. J.BootW. R.CharnessN.RogersW. A. (2019). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches (3rd ed.). CRC press.doi:10.1201/b22189
6.
DiSalvoC.NourbakhshI.HolstiusD.AkinA.LouwM. (2008). The neighborhood networks project: A case study of critical engagement and creative expression through participatory design[Conference session]. Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design, Bloomington, Indiana.
7.
ElpramaS. A.JewellC.JacobsA.MakriniE.VanderborghtB. (2017). Attitudes of factory workers towards industrial and collaborative robots[Conference session]. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Vienna, Austria
8.
FlahertyE.BartelsS. J. (2019). Addressing the community-based geriatric healthcare workforce shortage by leveraging the potential of interprofessional teams. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67, S400–S408.doi:10.1111/jgs.1592431074849
9.
FrascaraJ. (2002). Design and the social sciences: Making connections (Vol. 2). CRC Press.doi:10.1201/9780203301302
10.
FrennertS.EftringH.ÖstlundB. (2013). Using attention cards to facilitate active participation in eliciting old adults’ requirements for assistive robots. In2013 IEEE RO-MAN (pp.774–779). IEEE.
11.
FrennertS.ÖstlundB.EftringH. (2012). Would granny let an assistive robot into her home?[Conference session]. International Conference on Social Robotics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 128–137.
12.
GuizzoE. (2020). What is a robot? Your guide to the world of robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Society. https://robots.ieee.org/learn/
13.
IaconoI.MartiP. (2014). October). Engaging older people with participatory design. InProceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on Human-Computer interaction: Fun, fast, foundational (pp.859–864).
14.
KadylakT.BaylesM. A.GalosoL.ChanM.MahajanH.KempC.EdsingerA.RogersW. A. (in press). A human factors analysis of the stretch mobile manipulator robot. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 65th Annual Meeting.
15.
KarastiH. (2014). Infrastructuring in participatory design. InProceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers-Volume 1 (pp.141–150).
16.
KohlbrecherS.RomayA.StumpfA.GuptaA.Von StrykO.BacimF.ConnerD. C. (2015). Human-robot teaming for rescue missions: Team ViGIR’s approach to the 2013 DARPA Robotics Challenge Trials. Journal of Field Robotics, 32, 352–377.doi:10.1002/rob.21558
17.
KumarV. (2012). 101 design methods: A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. John Wiley & Sons.
18.
LazarA.ThompsonH. J.PiperA. M.DemirisG. (2016). Rethinking the design of robotic pets for older adults[Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Brisbane, Australia
19.
LeeH. R.SabanovićS.ChangW. L.NagataS.PiattJ.BennettC.HakkenD. (2017). Steps toward participatory design of social robots: mutual learning with older adults with depression. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.244–253).
20.
LeongT. W.JohnstonB. (2016). Co-design and robots: A case study of a robot dog for aging people. InInternational Conference on Social Robotics (pp.702–711). Springer.
21.
LuptonD. (2017). Digital health now and in the future: Findings from a participatory design stakeholder workshop. Digital Health, 3, 205520761774001.doi:10.1177/205520761774001829942616
22.
MerkelS.KucharskiA. (2019). Participatory design in gerontechnology: A systematic literature review. The Gerontologist, 59, e16–e25.doi:10.1093/geront/gny03429788319
23.
MitznerT. L.SmarrC.-A.RogersW. A.FiskA. D. (2015). Considering older adults’ perceptual capabilities in the design process. InHoffmanR. R.HancockP. A.ScerboM. W.ParasuramanR.SzalmaJ. L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of applied perception research (Vol. 2, pp.1051–1079). Cambridge University Press.
NicholasM.HagenP.RahillyK.SwainstonN. (2012). Using participatory design methods to engage the uninterested. InProceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases-Volume 2 (Vol. 2, pp.121–124).
26.
RandallN.abanovićS.ChangW. (2018). Engaging older adults with depression as co-designers of assistive in-home robots. InProceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (pp.304–309).
27.
RehmM.KrummheuerA. L.RodilK.NguyenM.ThorlaciusB. (2016). From social practices to social robots–user-driven robot development in elder care. InInternational Conference on Social Robotics (pp.692–701). Springer.
28.
RogersW. A.MitznerT. L. (2017). Human-robot interaction for older adults.Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology (2nd ed.,pp.1–11). Taylor and Francis.
29.
RoseE. J.BjörlingE. A. (2017). Designing for engagement: using participatory design to develop a social robot to measure teen stress. InProceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication (pp.1–10).
30.
SabanovićS.ChangW. L.BennettC. C.PiattJ. A.HakkenD. (2015). A robot of my own: participatory design of socially assistive robots for independently living older adults diagnosed with depression. InInternational Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population (pp.104–114). Springer.
31.
SheridanT. B. (2016). Human–robot interaction: Status and challenges. Human Factors, 58, 525–532.doi:10.1177/001872081664436427098262
32.
SmarrC.-A.MitznerT. L.BeerJ. M.PrakashA.ChenT. L.KempC. C.RogersW. A. (2014). Domestic robots for older adults: Attitudes, preferences, and potential. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 229–247.doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0220-025152779
33.
SpinuzziC. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52, 163–174.
34.
StoneN. J.ChaparroA.KeeblerJ. R.ChaparroB. S.McConnellD. S. (2017). Introduction to human factors: Applying psychology to design. CRC Press.
35.
SundarS. S.WaddellT. F.JungE. H. (2016). The Hollywood Robot Syndrome media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp.343–350). IEEE.
36.
TussyadiahI. P.ParkS. (2018). Consumer evaluation of hotel service robots. InStanglB.PesonenJ. (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp.308–320). Springer.
37.
VinesJ.BlytheM.LindsayS.DunphyP.MonkA.OlivierP. (2012). Questionable concepts: critique as resource for designing with eighty somethings. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.1169–1178). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2207676.2208567.
38.
WiczorekR.BaylesM. A.RogersW. A. (2020). Domestic robots for older adults: Design approaches and recommendations. InMoodyL.WoodcockA.McDonaghD.JainL. C. (Eds.), Design of assistive technology for ageing populations. Springer.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26292-1_11
