This paper describes the evaluation of human-robot-interaction (HRI) related to the future use of a humanoid robotic system as a tool supporting the care for an independently living elderly person with MCI. The core motivation was to summarize user experience that was gained during the tests of socially assistive robot in domestic trials. To what extend older users acceptance and use of the autonomous robot is the central research topic covered in this paper. To evaluate this problem user validation was performed together with 5 older people in their own homes during 10 weeks of trials. Detailed results covering user acceptance, their attitude towards the robot, perception of the robot and scores regarding the naturalness, animacy and intelligence of the tested system were measured using The Godspeed and the Almere questionnaire. The results show high acceptance of the robot in the context of perceived enjoyment, perceived ease of use, trust and social influence. What shows that elderly users may be open to the facilitating technologies.

Background: Efficient use of humanoid social robots in the care for older adults requires precise knowledge of expectations in this area. There is little research in this field that includes the interaction of stakeholders with the robot. Even fewer studies have compared the perceptions of older people (as care recipients) and professional caregivers (representing those taking care of older adults in teams with robots). Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze whether specific aspects of the perceptions about humanoid robots influence attitudes after interacting with the robot and to compare the opinions of different stakeholders (older people and their professional caregivers) on this topic. We analyzed the potential impact of the differences in perception of the robot between stakeholder groups with respect to how the robot should be designed and tailored to fit the specific needs of future users. We also attempted to define areas where targeted educational activities could bring the attitudes of the two groups of stakeholders closer to each other. Methods: The studied group was a conveniently available sample of individuals who took part in the presentation of and interaction with a humanoid social robot. Among them, there were 48 community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥60 years), who were participants of day care units (which may signal the presence of self-care needs), and 53 professional caregivers. The participants were asked to express their views after an interaction with a humanoid social robot (TIAGo) using the Users’ Needs, Requirements and Abilities Questionnaire (UNRAQ) and the Godspeed Questionnaire Series (GQS). Results: Compared to the caregivers, older adults not only assessed the robot more positively with respect to its roles as a companion and assistant (P=.009 and P=.003, respectively) but also had higher scores on their need to increase their knowledge about the robot (P=.049). Regarding the robot’s functions, the greatest differences between groups were observed for the social aspects on the UNRAQ, including decreasing the sense of loneliness (P=.003) and accompanying the user in everyday activities (P=.005). As for the GQS, the mean scores of the Animacy, Likeability, and Perceived Intelligence scales were significantly higher for older participants than for caregivers (P=.04, P<.001, and P<.001, respectively). The only parameter for which the caregivers’ scores were higher than those of the older adults was the Artificial-Lifelike item from the Anthropomorphism scale of the GQS (P=.03). Conclusions: The acceptance of the social functions of a humanoid robot is related to its perception in all analyzed aspects, whereas the expected usefulness of a care robot is not linked to aspects of anthropomorphism. Successful implementation of robots in the care for older people thus depends on considering not only the fears, needs, and requirements of various stakeholders but also on the perceptions of the robot. Given the differences between the stakeholders, targeted and properly structured educational and training activities for caregivers and prospective users may enable a seamless integration of robotic technologies in care provision.

(1) Background: Using autonomous social robots in selected areas of care for community-dwelling older adults is one of the promising approaches to address the problem of the widening care gap. We posed the question of whether a possibility to interact with the technology to be used had an impact on the scores given by the respondents in various domains of needs and requirements for social robots to be deployed in care for older individuals. (2) Methods: During the study, the opinions of older people (65+; n = 113; with no severe cognitive impairment) living in six social care institutions about a robot in care for older people were collected twice using the Users’ Needs, Requirements and Abilities Questionnaire (UNRAQ): after seeing a photo of the robot only and after a 90–150 min interaction with the TIAGo robot. (3) Results: Mean total scores for both assistive and social functions were higher after the interaction (p < 0.05). A positive correlation was found between opinion changes in social and assistive functions (r = 0.4842; p = 0.0000). (4) Conclusions: Preimplementation studies and assessments should include the possibility to interact with the robot to provide its future users with a clear idea of the technology and facilitate necessary customisations of the machine.

(1) Background: A robot in care for older adults requires solid research confirming its acceptance. The aim of this study was to present the Polish version of the Godspeed Questionnaire Series (GQS) and assess the perception of the social robot TIAGo; (2) Methods: The study involved older individuals living in the community and care homes and measured perception after interaction with TIAGo using five series of GQS (S1: Anthropomorphism, S2: Animacy, S3: Likeability, S4: Perceived intelligence, and S5: Perceived safety); (3) Results: We studied 178 individuals (age: 75.2 ± 9.6 years, 103 women). Good internal consistency was found. Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.90 for the entire tool (from 0.75 to 0.94 for the individual series). Mean scores for S1 and S2 were comparable but lower than all others (p < 0.001). Average scores for S3 and S4 did not differ but were higher than those of S5. Age, gender and education did not impact the answers, as did the ease of use of technology and self-assessment of independence. Solely, the place of residence influenced the results of S3 and S5; people living in institutions scored higher (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively); (4) Conclusions: Acceptance does not go hand in hand with the perception of anthropomorphism and animacy.

BACKGROUND While there is a growing body of research examining opinions on social robots in elderly care, there is a lack of comprehensive studies investigating the underlying factors influencing these opinions. The Godspeed Questionnaire Series (GQS) measures perceptions related to human-robot interactions (HRIs). The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is widely used to evaluate physical, cognitive, and social functions of older patients. The EASYCare 2010 Standard (EC) is a tool for assessing unmet needs in older individuals. TIAGo, a social humanoid robot, integrates perception, navigation, and HRI capabilities. This study aimed to identify the determinants of perception following interactions between older individuals and TIAGo, utilizing the GQS, selected CGA items, and EC. MATERIAL AND METHODS We analyzed a database of opinions from older individuals who interacted with TIAGo, based on the Users' Needs, Requirements, and Abilities Questionnaire. We examined the relationships between the robot's roles (companion/assistant/useful device), its assistive/social functions, and various characteristics of the older participants. RESULTS The study included 161 participants (mean age: 75.2±9.8 years), comprising 89 women and 113 institutionalized individuals. Positive correlations were observed between the robot's role, its functions, and the participants'; perceptions across most evaluated parameters (Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived intelligence, Perceived safety). Only a few individual correlations were found for other parameters. CONCLUSIONS The primary determinant of older individuals' opinions was their perception of the robot. Therefore, involving older adults in the co-design process of such robots is crucial. Additionally, a paradigm shift is needed in the study of humanoid social robots, focusing on successful aging rather than deficits associated with aging.