TECHNOLOGY

The ageing of the world's populations presents an unprecedented challenge for societies grappling with how to provide dignified, meaningful care for their elders. As families become increasingly dispersed and caregivers prove insatiably in demand, potential solutions continue to develop from the realm of robotics. From companion droids designed to stimulate social connections and stave off loneliness, to assistive automata that can aid with daily tasks and health monitoring, the field of care robotics is rapidly progressing. However, as this technological frontier advances, crucial ethical, cultural and behavioural factors must be examined. How can these innovative care bots and social robots be seamlessly integrated into the delicate social fabric of ageing communities in a manner that respects independence while elevating quality of life? TLOA discusses these complex dynamics with Dr.Astrid Weiss, and her research on human-robot interactions now and into the future.

What key factors should be considered when integrating care bots and social robots into the daily lives of older adults especially addressing the unique challenges associated with ageing populations?

Developing robots for care, especially for the elderly, is a controversial topic. There are two main views on this issue. One view sees robots as solutions to problems such as an ageing population and not having enough care workers. This view believes robots can help solve these big issues. On the other hand, many people worry about robots taking jobs from humans. They also have concerns about the ethical and legal issues of using robots in care. In reality, most current robot technologies for care don't work as well as hoped. This isn't just because the technology isn't ready. It's also because there isn't much demand for the ‘care tasks’ that can be done by robots right now.

To make robots that succeed in delivering care, we need to understand the complex needs of everyone involved, including the people receiving care and those providing it. We also need to consider how care is influenced by social, material and political factors.

Meet the robot Aido and the robot Care-O-Bot 

How do robots complement or supplement existing caregiving practices in aged care facilities, and what role do human caregivers play in supporting the integration of these technologies?

Robots designed to help people with physical and cognitive challenges are already being used or trialled in various ways. Some robots encourage and monitor exercises for the elderly, using special computer vision techniques adapted for older people's needs, like seated exercises. Other robots take on tasks such as cleaning, moving patients, or transporting medical supplies. For example, robots like Moxi and Atheon can help in hospitals with tasks like delivering supplies. The Poseidon robot even acts as a shower assistant in Swedish care homes. Some robots are designed to assist with daily activities and help people live independently at home for longer. Projects like SERROGA and Hobbit aim to create humanoid robots to support older adults with daily tasks and cognitive training, whereas the Aido and Care-O-Bot platforms offer general robot assistance for everyday activities and entertainment.

There are also unique concepts like the Babyloid, a baby-like robot that patients care for, to help them think and feel. This helps them recognise their own needs and engage socially. One well-known robot designed to combat loneliness is Paro, a seal-like robot that interacts with patients to stimulate affection. Studies have shown it can reduce loneliness . However, in one care facility in Austria, the robot was put away after the project ended because caregivers weren't trained to use it effectively. Catalia Health's AI platform and the RoboGen system are examples of other robots that focus on conversation to reduce loneliness. There are robots to help older adults stay connected with others or to provide entertainment, such as the EMiR robot and the Manzani robots.

Projects creating robots to assist older adults have mostly involved engaging potential users themselves in the design process. Unfortunately, other important people, like caregivers, are often included too late in the process or not at all . This means that many decisions, often driven by technology, are made before key stakeholders are consulted. The project ReThiCare is exploring the importance of understanding the whole care system, including social and material aspects. During workshops, Professor Eva Hornecker highlighted the need to involve a wide range of collaborators , not just at the end but throughout the development process.

In our Caring Robots//Robotic Care project, we want to embrace this approach. We aim to involve key people at every stage of technology development, focusing on what robotic technology should do in care, not just what it could do. This means stakeholders will actively contribute to planning, designing, and evaluating the project. Our goal is to create a culture of participation that leads to meaningful technology improvements for both caregivers and those receiving care.

What are the most important factors influencing older adults' acceptance or rejection of robotic technologies? How can these insights inform future design and implementation efforts?

In my project, SharedSpace, we saw that social gains (status and connection to other people) are the most enduring factors, even more so than hedonic ones (entertainment, fun, pleasure) which tend to be lost after the novelty period wears off. We consider this is an important lesson for the development and design of the next generation of social robots. It does not give us the answer to what will be the ‘killer app’ for future companion robots, but it does give us one important insight: the factors that determine whether or not a robot service should be implemented post-field trials do not differ too much from other technological innovations. Up until now we have had few long-term field trials with more complex service robots for a good overview that are really comparable to the studies of commercially available robots. However, we argue, future long-term field trials of prototypical systems should consider a social shaping perspective, to challenge our assumption.

Our study showed that social aspects experienced with a companion robot are very important, even if the ‘usefulness’ of that robot was deemed minimal. We agree with J Young, Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology, 2009, that “the domestic socialisation of robots is largely dependent upon subjective consumer perceptions of what robots are, how they work and what exactly they are and are not capable of doing in a domestic environment”, an assumption which our study data clearly supports.

But in our opinion, designing social cues for domestic companion robots is relevant to create agency and foster the engagement and hedonic quality of the agent (entertainment, fun, pleasure); however, these effects tend to wear off after two weeks to two months. Therefore, the design of future companion robots should focus rather on how to increase social gain factors (besides utility), as these seem to be the most enduring features, instead of adding more social cues.

Are there cultural differences in the ways that various countries interact with robots? If so, could you please discuss some of these differences and how they may influence the interaction and usage of robotic technologies in different cultural contexts?

Researchers have done many studies to see how people from different cultures see and interact with robots. They found that people from places like Asia and the Western world, which includes America and Europe, have different reactions to robots. These cultural differences in how people see and accept robots are important to understand, especially since robots are becoming more important in healthcare. Some researchers think that religion might be a reason for the differences between east and west, bruno2017. For example, in Asian cultures such as Japan and Korea, where animism is a common belief, people might be more accepting of robots because they see a spiritual connection in both living and non-living things. On the other hand, in western cultures where people often see humans as special, robots might make people uncomfortable.

However, some studies have found evidence that goes against these ideas, showing that it's not so simple. So, we need to continue to study this topic for better understanding. Overall, the differences in how people from different cultures interact with robots mainly come down to:
What the robot looks like,
Where and how the robot is used,
How the robot behaves,
And how people in different cultures see robots.

As robotics technology and AI continue to advance, what do you think are the most promising avenues for future research and innovation in the field of human-robot interaction?

My personal research interest for now is in the area of digital afterlife, as GernativeAI will play a major role here. I see a potential prospective use of personal robots in end-of-life (care) settings for maintaining a digital presence of a person’s personal identity beyond their (biological) death. The double hypothesis is that (i) the embodied nature of such personal robots facilitates new dimensions of human-robot interaction, leading to a constructive process of digital identity co-construction, in contrast to the purely text-based human-computer interaction with chatbots trained on data of a dead person (‘thanabots’), and that (ii) such digital identity co-construction may positively impact the experience of death and dying. Obviously the whole area of digital afterlife is an ethically, legally, and societally challenging arena, which requires early research on policy making and critical design.

Dr. Astrid Weiss is an Assistant Professor at the TU Wien. With a background in Sociology and Human-Computer Interaction, she studies how humans interact with new technology. Her general research interests are user-centred design and evaluation studies for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) with a focus on in-the-wild studies and controlled experiments. She is especially interested in the impact technology has on our everyday life and what makes people accept or reject technology.