Publication:
A Survey on Socially Assistive Robotics: Clinicians’ and Patients’ Perception of a Social Robot within Gait Rehabilitation Therapies

Thumbnail Image
Files

Files

A Survey on Socially Assistive Robotics.pdf (706.17 KB)
View Statistics
Reference Managers
Mendeley
Indexers
Google Scholar CORE
QR Code
QR Code
Authors

Authors

Raigoso, Denniss
Céspedes, Nathalia
Cifuentes, Carlos A.
del Ama, Antonio J
Múnera, Marcela
Abstract (Spanish)
Actualmente se observa un creciente interés en la Robótica de Asistencia Social en la Rehabilitación Física; algunos de los beneficios resaltan la capacidad de un robot social para apoyar y asistir en los procedimientos de rehabilitación. Este artículo presenta un estudio de percepción que tuvo como objetivo evaluar la percepción de los médicos y los pacientes sobre un robot social que se integrará como parte de la terapia Lokomat. Se encuestó a un total de 88 participantes, empleando un cuestionario en línea basado en la Teoría Unificada de Aceptación y Uso de la Tecnología (UTAUT). Los participantes pertenecen a dos instituciones de atención médica ubicadas en diferentes países (Colombia y España). Los resultados mostraron una percepción general positiva del robot social (>60% de los participantes tienen una aceptación positiva). Además, se encontró una diferencia según la naturaleza del usuario (médico vs. paciente)
Abstract (English)
A growing interest in Socially Assistive Robotics in Physical Rehabilitation is currently observed; some of the benefits highlight the capability of a social robot to support and assist rehabilitation procedures. This paper presents a perception study that aimed to evaluate clinicians’ and patients’ perception of a social robot that will be integrated as part of Lokomat therapy. A total of 88 participants were surveyed, employing an online questionnaire based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). The participants belong to two health care institutions located in different countries (Colombia and Spain). The results showed an overall positive perception of the social robot (>60% of participants have a positive acceptance). Furthermore, a difference depending on the nature of the user (clinician vs. patient) was found.
Extent
13 páginas
URI: https://repositorio.escuelaing.edu.co/handle/001/3245
Collections

Collections

AA. Gibiome
References

World Health Organization. World Report On Disability; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 57–70.

O’Sullivan, S.B.; Schmitz, T.J.; Fulk, G.D. Physical Rehabilitation, 6th ed.; FA Davis Company: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013; p. 1505.

Hocoma. Lokomat Therapy Is Backed Up by Nearly 20 Years of Clinical Research; Knowledge Hocoma: Volketswil, Switzerland, 2020.

Barbeau, H.; Wainberg, M.; Finch, L. Description and application of a system for locomotor rehabilitation. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 1987, 25, 341–344. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Mayr, A.; Kofler, M.; Quirbach, E.; Matzak, H.; Fröhlich, K.; Saltuari, L. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2007, 21, 307–314. [CrossRef]

Hwang, S.; Kim, H.R.; Han, Z.A.; Lee, B.S.; Kim, S.; Shin, H.; Moon, J.G.; Yang, S.P.; Lim, M.H.; Cho, D.Y.; et al. Improved Gait Speed After Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Patients With Motor Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Preliminary Study. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 2017, 41, 34–41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Vänni, K.J.; Salin, S.E. Attitudes of Professionals toward the Need for Assistive and Social Robots in the Healthcare Sector; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 205–236. [CrossRef]

Appelbaum, S.H.; Marchionni, A.; Fernandez, A. The multi-tasking paradox: perceptions, problems and strategies. Manag. Decis. 2008, 46, 1313–1325. [CrossRef]

Kalisch, B.J.; Aebersold, M. Interruptions and multitasking in nursing care. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 2010, 36, 126–132. [CrossRef]

Céspedes, N.; Irfan, B.; Senft, E.; Cifuentes, C.A.; Gutierrez, L.F.; Rincon-Roncancio, M.; Belpaeme, T.; Múnera, M. A Socially Assistive Robot for Long-Term Cardiac Rehabilitation in the Real World. Front. Neurorobot. 2021, 15, 1–19. [CrossRef]

Fasola, J.; Matari´c, M.J. Using socially assistive human-robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proc. IEEE 2012, 100, 2512–2526. [CrossRef]

Masvaure, P.; Ruggunan, S.; Maharaj, A. Work Engagement, Intrinsic Motivation and Job Satisfaction among Employees of a Diamond Mining Company in Zimbabwe. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 2014, 6, 488–499. [CrossRef]

Casas, J.; Cespedes, N.; Múnera, M.; Cifuentes, C.A. Human-Robot Interaction for Rehabilitation Scenarios; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 1–31. [CrossRef]

Leite, I.; Martinho, C.; Paiva, A. Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 291–308. [CrossRef]

Cifuentes, C.A.; Pinto, M.J.; Céspedes, N.; Munera, M. Social Robots in Therapy and Care; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [CrossRef]

Heerink, M.; Vanderborght, B.; Broekens, J.; Albo-Canals, J. New Friends: Social Robots in Therapy and Education. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2016, 8, 443–444. [CrossRef]

Fischinger, D.; Einramhof, P.; Papoutsakis, K.; Wohlkinger, W.; Mayer, P.; Panek, P.; Hofmann, S.; Koertner, T.; Weiss, A.; Argyros, A.; et al. Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2016, 75, 60–78. [CrossRef]

Riek, L.D. Healthcare robotics. Commun. ACM 2017, 60, 68–78. [CrossRef]

Céspedes Gómez, N.; Calderon Echeverria, A.V.; Munera, M.; Rocon, E.; Cifuentes, C.A. First Interaction Assessment between a Social Robot and Children Diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy in a Rehabilitation Context; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 484–488. [CrossRef]

Martí Carrillo, F.; Butchart, J.; Knight, S.; Scheinberg, A.; Wise, L.; Sterling, L.; McCarthy, C. In-situ design and development of a socially assistive robot for paediatric rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Vienna, Austria, 6–9 March 2017; pp. 199–200. [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]

Munera, M.; Marroquin, A.; Jimenez, L.; Lara, J.S.; Gomez, C.; Rodriguez, S.; Rodriguez, L.E.; Cifuentes, C.A. Lokomat Therapy in Colombia: Current State and Cognitive Aspects; IEEE: London, UK, 2017; pp. 394–399. [CrossRef]

Casas, J.A.; Céspedes, N.; Cifuentes, C.A.; Gutierrez, L.F.; Rincón-Roncancio, M.; Múnera, M. Expectation vs. reality: Attitudes towards a socially assistive robot in cardiac rehabilitation. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4651. [CrossRef]

Chen, S.C.; Jones, C.; Moyle, W. Health Professional and Workers Attitudes Towards the Use of Social Robots for Older Adults in Long-Term Care. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2019, 12, 1135–1147. [CrossRef]

Cespedes, N.; Munera, M.; Gomez, C.; Cifuentes, C.A. Social Human-Robot Interaction for Gait Rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2020, 28, 1299–1307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Céspedes, N.; Raigoso, D.; Múnera, M.; Cifuentes, C. Long-Term Social Human-Robot Interaction for Neurorehabilitation: Robots as a Tool to Support Gait Therapy in the Pandemic. Front. Neurorobot. 2021, 15, 612034. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Broadbent, E.; Stafford, R.; MacDonald, B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2009, 1, 319–330. [CrossRef]

Sierra, S.D.; Gomez, D.; Céspedes, N.; Múnera, M.; Roberti, F.; Barria, P.; Ramamoorthy, S.; Becker, M.; Carelli, R.; Cifuentes, C.A. Expectations and Perceptions of Healthcare Professionals for Robot Deployment in Hospital Environments during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Robot. AI 2021, 8, 102. [CrossRef]

Breazeal, C.; Dautenhahn, K.; Kanda, T. Social robotics. In Handbook of Robotics; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 1935–1971. [CrossRef]

Shamsuddin, S. Humanoid robot NAO: Review of control and motion exploration. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering, Penang, Malaysia, 25–27 November 2011; Volume 75. [CrossRef]

Heerink, M.; Kröse, B.; Evers, V.; Wielinga, B. Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: The Almere Model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2010, 2, 361–375. [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, 425–478. [CrossRef]

Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [CrossRef]

Jalessi, M.; Farhadi, M.; Kamrava, S.K.; Amintehran, E.; Asghari, A.; Rezaei Hemami, M.; Mobasseri, A.; Masroorchehr, M. The reliability and validity of the persian version of sinonasal outcome test 22 (SNOT 22) questionnaires. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2013, 15, 404–408. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Vandemeulebroucke, T.; de Casterlé, B.D.; Gastmans, C. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment. Health 2018, 22, 149–167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Bartneck, C.; Belpaeme, T.; Eyssel, F.; Kanda, T.; Keijsers, M.; Šabanovi´c, S. Human-Robot Interaction; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [CrossRef]

Stafford, R.Q.; MacDonald, B.A.; Jayawardena, C.; Wegner, D.M.; Broadbent, E. Does the Robot Have a Mind? Mind Perception and Attitudes Towards Robots Predict Use of an Eldercare Robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2014, 6, 17–32. [CrossRef]

Jokinen, K.; Wilcock, G. Multimodal Open-Domain Conversations with Robotic Platforms; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 9–26. [CrossRef]

Hayashi, K.; Sakamoto, D.; Kanda, T.; Shiomi, M.; Koizumi, S.; Ishiguro, H.; Ogasawara, T.; Hagita, N. Humanoid Robots as a Passive-Social Medium: A Field Experiment at a Train Station; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 137–144. [CrossRef]

Wu, Y.H.; Fassert, C.; Rigaud, A.S. Designing robots for the elderly: Appearance issue and beyond. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2012, 54, 121–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]