A Socially Assistive Robot Exercise Coach for the Elderly

Fasola & Matarić. A SAR Exercise Coach for the Elderlyconditions over time. Data gathered from the first and fourth session post-session surveyswere analyzed using a two-tailed independent two-sample T-test assuming unequalvariances to test for significant differences among the participant evaluations of the robotand the interaction across both conditions. Survey results from the fourth session wereused to perform the final comparison analysis, as they were less likely to contain scoresinfluenced by the effect of novelty.4.2 Participant StatisticsWe recruited elderly individuals to participate in the study through a partnership withbe.group, an organization of senior living communities in Southern California, usingflyers and word-of-mouth. We offered a $50 Target gift card to those willing toparticipate in all four sessions of the study. Thirty-seven people responded, of whom fourwere omitted due to inconsistent/incorrect answers to survey questions that were used toidentify questionable survey results. Thus, there were a total of 33 participants whosedata were analyzed. Half of the participants were placed in the physical robot group (n =16), and the other half were placed in the virtual robot group (n = 17). The samplepopulation consisted of 27 female participants (82%) and 6 male participants (18%).Participants’ ages ranged from 68–88, and the average age was 76 (SD = 6.32).4.3 Measures4.3.1 Evaluation of InteractionThere were two dependent measures used to evaluate the interaction with the robotexercise system. The first measure was the enjoyableness of the interaction, collectedfrom participant assessments of the interaction according to six adjectives: enjoyable,interesting, fun, satisfying, entertaining, boring, and exciting (Cronbach’s α = .92).Participants were asked to rate how well each adjective described the interaction on a 10-point scale, anchored by “Describes Very Poorly” (1) and “Describes Very Well” (10).Ratings for the adjective “boring” were inverted to keep consistency with the otheradjectives that reflect higher scores as being more positive.The second measure was the perceived value or usefulness of the interaction.Similarly, participants were asked to evaluate how well each of the following fouradjectives described the interaction: useful, beneficial, valuable, and helpful (Cronbach’sα = .96). The same 10-point scale anchored by “Describes Very Poorly” (1) and“Describes Very Well” (10) was used in the evaluation.4.3.2 Evaluation of RobotCompanionship of the robot was measured from participant responses to nine 10-pointsemantic differential scales concerning the following robot descriptions: bad/good, notloving/loving, not friendly/friendly, not cuddly/cuddly, cold/warm, unpleasant/pleasant,cruel/kind, bitter/sweet, and distant/close (Cronbach’s α = .89). These questions werederived from the Companion Animal Bonding Scale of Poresky, Hendrix, Mosier, andSamuelson (1987). The companionship of the robot was measured to assess potential useracceptance of the robot as an in-home companion, thereby demonstrating the capabilityof the system to facilitate independent living.Participants evaluated the helpfulness of the robot by rating four robot characteristicson a 10-point scale: useful, valuable, beneficial, and helpful (Cronbach’s α = .96). Therating scale was anchored by “Not at all” (1) and “Absolutely” (10). Using the same19