Publication:
Expectation vs. Reality: Attitudes Towards a Socially Assistive Robot in Cardiac Rehabilitation

Thumbnail Image
Files

Files

Expectation vs. Reality Attitudes Towards a Socially Assistive Robot in Cardiac Rehabilitation.pdf (1.93 MB)
View Statistics
Reference Managers
Mendeley
Indexers
Google Scholar CORE
QR Code
QR Code
Authors

Authors

Casas, Jonathan A.
Céspedes, Nathalia
Cifuentes, Carlos A.
Gutierrez, Luisa F.
Rincón Roncancio, Mónica
Múnera, Marcela
Abstract (Spanish)
Actualmente, la Robótica de Asistencia Social (SAR) es ampliamente explorada en diferentes áreas y escenarios. En rehabilitación cardíaca, el SAR se ha implementado recientemente como una herramienta para mejorar la calidad de los procedimientos y apoyar a los pacientes para aumentar su desempeño. Rehabilitación cardiaca as Consta de numerosas sesiones, dichos sistemas deben garantizar su eficacia a largo plazo. Por lo tanto, Para lograr este objetivo, es importante comprender cómo los usuarios, específicamente los pacientes y los médicos que Principalmente conoce las necesidades y el entorno de la terapia, percibe esta tecnología. En este contexto, Este artículo presenta la evaluación de las actitudes hacia un robot social con el fin de evaluar la expectativa de nuevos usuarios potenciales y la percepción de los usuarios que interactuaron con las redes sociales. robot durante un periodo de 18 semanas realizando rehabilitación cardíaca. Un total de 43 participantes (28 pacientes y 15 médicos) fueron incluidos en el estudio, y los factores de aceptación y percepción fueron evaluado a través de un modelo de cuestionario UTAUT modificado y sesiones de discusión abierta. Resultados muestran que el 75% de los pacientes tienen pensamientos positivos respecto a la utilidad, utilidad, seguridad y confianza percibido de un robot social, y el 80% de los médicos consideran que el robot es una herramienta útil para las enfermedades cardíacas. rehabilitación. De manera similar, se notó una percepción más positiva después de que los usuarios interactuaron con el robot. Además, este estudio de percepción permite potenciar el modelo social de interacción. en el futuro, con el objetivo de proporcionar una interacción más natural a través de funciones personalizadas, aumentando Habilidades sociales y compromiso de los usuarios durante la terapia.
Abstract (English)
Currently, Social Assistive Robotics (SAR) is widely explored in different areas and scenarios. In cardiac rehabilitation, SAR has been recently implemented as a tool to improve the quality of the procedures and support patients to increase their performance. Ace cardiac rehabilitation Comprises numerous sessions, such systems must guarantee to be effective in the long term. Therefore, to achieve this goal, it is important to understand how users, specifically patients and clinicians who Mostly know the needs and the therapy environment, perceive this technology. In this context, This paper presents the assessment of the attitudes towards a social robot in order to evaluate the expectation of potential new users, and perception of users who interacted with the social robot during a period of 18 weeks performing cardiac rehabilitation. A total of 43 participants (28 patients and 15 clinicians) were included in the study, and acceptance and perception factors were evaluated through a modified UTAUT questionnaire model and open discussion sessions. Results show that 75% of patients have positive thoughts regarding the usefulness, utility, safety, and trust perceived of a social robot, and 80% of clinicians consider that the robot is a useful tool for cardiac rehabilitation. Similarly, a more positive perception was noticed after the users interacted with the robot. Furthermore, this perception study allows the enhancement of the social model of interaction in the future, aiming to provide a more natural interaction through personalized features, increasing social abilities and engagement of the users during the therapy.
Extent
19 páginas
URI: https://repositorio.escuelaing.edu.co/handle/001/3335
Collections

Collections

AA. Gibiome
References

Okamura, A.M.; Mataric, M.J.; Christensen, H.I. Medical and Health-Care Robotics. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2010, 17, 26–37. [CrossRef]

Matari´c, M.J.; Eriksson, J.; Feil-Seifer, D.J.; Winstein, C.J. Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 2007, 4, 5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Feil-Seifer, D.; Matari´c, M.J. Toward Socially Assistive Robotics for Augmenting Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. In Experimental Robotics; Khatib, O., Kumar, V., Pappas, G.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 201–210.

Rabbitt, S.M.; Kazdin, A.E.; Scassellati, B. Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: Applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 35, 35–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Fridin, M.; Belokopytov, M. Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 33, 23–31. [CrossRef]

Casas, J.; Irfan, B.; Senft, E.; Gutiérrez, L.; Rincon-Roncancio, M.; Munera, M.; Belpaeme, T.; Cifuentes, C.A. Social Assistive Robot for Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Pilot Study with Patients with Angioplasty. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Chicago, IL, USA, 5–8 March 2018; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 79–80. [CrossRef]

Gonzalez, J.C.; Pulido, J.C.; Fernandez, F.; Suarez-Mejias, C. Planning, execution and monitoring of physical rehabilitation therapies with a robotic architecture. Stud Health Technol. Inf. 2015, 210, 339–343.

Süssenbach, L.; Riether, N.; Schneider, S.; Berger, I.; Kummert, F.; Lütkebohle, I.; Pitsch, K. A robot as fitness companion: Towards an interactive action-based motivation model. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Edinburgh, UK, 25–29 August 2014; pp. 286–293. [CrossRef]

Dc, W.; Gockley, R.; Bruce, A.; Forlizzi, J.; Michalowski, M.; Mundell, A.; Rosenthal, S.; Sellner, B.; Simmons, R.; Snipes, K.; et al. Designing Robots for Long-Term Social Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2–6 August 2005; pp. 2199–2204.

Riek, L.D. Healthcare Robotics. Commun. Acm 2017, 60, 68–78. [CrossRef]

Leite, I.; Martinho, C.; Paiva, A. Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2013, 5, 291–308. [CrossRef]

de Graaf, M.M.; Allouch, S.B.; Klamer, T. Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 1–14. [CrossRef]

Kidd, C.D.; Breazeal, C. Robots at home: Understanding long-term human–robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Nice, France, 22–26 September 2008; pp. 3230–3235. [CrossRef]

Kanda, T.; Hirano, T.; Eaton, D.; Ishiguro, H. Interactive Robots As Social Partners and Peer Tutors for Children: A Field Trial. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2004, 19, 61–84. [CrossRef]

Feil-Seifer, D.; Matari´c, M.J. Defining socially assistive robotics. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, IL, USA, 28 June–1 July 2005; pp. 465–468. [CrossRef]

Shin, D.H.; Choo, H. Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: Social presence in human–robot interaction. Interact. Stud. 2011, 12, 430–460. [CrossRef]

Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425. [CrossRef]

Heerink, M.; Kröse, B.; Evers, V.; Wielinga, B. Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology byOlder Adults: The Almere Model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 361–375. [CrossRef]

World Heart Organization. Cardiovascular Disease. 2017. Available online: https://www.who.int/en/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds) (accessed on 15 January 2019).

Lara, J.S.; Casas, J.; Aguirre, A.; Munera, M.; Rincon-Roncancio, M.; Irfan, B.; Senft, E.; Belpaeme, T.; Cifuentes, C.A. Human-robot sensor interface for cardiac rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), London, UK, 17–20 July 2017; pp. 1013–1018

Graham, I.M.; Fallon, N.; Ingram, S.; Leong, T.; Gormley, J.; O’Doherty, V.; Maher, V.; Benson, S.E. Rehabilitation of the Patient with Coronary Heart Disease. In Hurst’s The Heart, 13th ed.; Mc-Graw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 1–33.

Kraus, W.; Keteyian, S. Cardiac Rehabilitation; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2007

Scherr, J.; Wolfarth, B.; Christle, J.W.; Pressler, A.; Wagenpfeil, S.; Halle, M. Associations between Borg’s rating of perceived exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 113, 147–155. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Siegert, R.J.; Taylor, W.J. Theoretical aspects of goal-setting and motivation in rehabilitation. Disabil. Rehabil. 2004, 26, 1–8. [CrossRef]

Maclean, N.; Pound, P. A critical review of the concept of patient motivation in the literature on physical rehabilitation. Soc. Sci. Med. 2000, 50, 495–506. [CrossRef]

Laver, K.; George, S.; Ratcliffe, J.; Crotty, M. Measuring technology self efficacy: Reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting. Disabil. Rehabil. 2012, 34, 220–227. [CrossRef]

Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [CrossRef]

Schnall, R.; Higgins, T.; Brown, W.; Carballo-Dieguez, A.; Bakken, S. Trust, Perceived Risk, Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness as Factors Related to mHealth Technology Use. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2015, 216, 467–471

Hennemann, S.; Beutel, M.E.; Zwerenz, R. Drivers and Barriers to Acceptance of Web-Based Aftercare of Patients in Inpatient Routine Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e337. [CrossRef]

Liu, L.; Cruz, A.M.; Rincon, A.R.; Buttar, V.; Ranson, Q.; Goertzen, D. What factors determine therapists’ acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation—A study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Disabil. Rehabil. 2015, 37, 447–455. [CrossRef]

Hatami Kaleshtari, M.; Ciobanu, I.; Lucian Seiciu, P.; Georgiana Marin, A.; Berteanu, M. Towards a Model of Rehabilitation Technology Acceptance and Usability. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2016, 6, 612–616. [CrossRef]

Griffiths, S.; Alpay, T.; Sutherland, A.; Kerzel, M.; Eppe, M.; Strahl, E.; Wermter, S. Exercise with Social Robots: Companion or Coach? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Personal Robots for Exercising and Coaching at the HRI 2018, Chicago, IL, USA, 5–8 March 2018

Schneider, S.; Goerlich, M.; Kummert, F. A framework for designing socially assistive robot interactions. Cogn. Syst. Res. 2017, 43, 301–312. [CrossRef]

de Ruyter, B.; Aarts, E. Ambient Intelligence: Visualizing the Future. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, Venezia, Italy, 23–26 May 2004; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 203–208. [CrossRef]

Weiss, A.; Bernhaupt, R.; Lankes, M.; Tscheligi, M. The USUS Evaluation Framework for Human–Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction AISB2009, Edinburg, Scotland, 6–9 April 2009; pp. 158–165.

Heerink, M.; Kröse, B.; Wielinga, B.; Evers, V. Measuring the Influence of Social Abilities on Acceptance of an Interface Robot and a Screen Agent by Elderly Users. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology, Cambridge, UK, 1–5 September 2009; British Computer Society: Swinton, UK, 2009; pp. 430–439.

Heerink, M.; Krose, B.; Evers, V.; Wielinga, B. Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: A suggested toolkit. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, Japan, 27 September–2 October 2009; pp. 528–533. [CrossRef]

Fink, J.; Lemaignan, S.; Dillenbourg, P.; Rétornaz, P.; Vaussard, F.C.; Berthoud, A.; Mondada, F.; Wille, F.; Franinovic, K. Which Robot Behavior Can Motivate Children to Tidy up Their Toys? Design and Evaluation of “Ranger”. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany, 3–6 March 2014; pp. 439–446.

Weiss, A.; Bernhaupt, R.; Tscheligi, M.; Wollherr, D.; Kühnlenz, K.; Buss, M. A methodological variation for acceptance evaluation of human–robot interaction in public places. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Munich, Germany, 1–3 August 2008; pp. 713–718. [CrossRef]

Bickmore, T.; Schulman, D. Practical Approaches to Comforting. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2007: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007; pp. 2291–2296.

Louie, W.Y.G.; McColl, D.; Nejat, G. Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults. Assist. Technol. 2014, 26, 140–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Winkle, K.; Caleb-Solly, P.; Turton, A.; Bremner, P. Social Robots for Engagement in Rehabilitative Therapies. 2018; In Proceedings of the ACM HR1 2018: Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Chicago, IL, USA, 5–8 March 2018; pp. 289–297. [CrossRef]

Joost, C.F.; Dodou, D. Five-Point Likert Items: T test versus Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2010, 15, 1–16.

Blair, R.C.; Higgins, J.J. A Comparison of the Power of Wilcoxon’s Rank-Sum Statistic to That of Student’s t Statistic under Various Nonnormal Distributions. J. Educ. Stat. 1980, 5, 309. [CrossRef]

Fink, J.; Bauwens, V.; Kaplan, F.; Dillenbourg, P. Living with a Vacuum Cleaning Robot: A 6-month Ethnographic Study. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2013, 5, 389–408. [CrossRef]

Zajonc, R.B. Attitudinal effects of “mere exposure”: A reevaluation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1968, 9, 1–27. [CrossRef]

Kim, A.; Han, J.; Jung, Y.; Lee, K. The effects of familiarity and robot gesture on user acceptance of information. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, 3–6 March 2013; pp. 159–160. [CrossRef]

Jung, M.; Hinds, P. Robots in the Wild. ACM Trans. Hum.-Robot. Interact. 2018, 7, 1–5. [CrossRef]

Powers, A.; Kiesler, S.; Fussell, S.; Torrey, C. Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Arlington, VA, USA, 10–12 March 2007; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; p. 145. [CrossRef]

Baddoura, R.; Venture, G. Social vs. Useful HRI: Experiencing the Familiar, Perceiving the Robot as a Sociable Partner and Responding to Its Actions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2013, 5, 529–547. [CrossRef]

Turkle, S. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, 1th ed.; Basic books: New York, NY, USA, 2011.