Robot Therapy for Elders Affected by Dementia - IEEE Pulse

58
D of D α
0.0500
0.0400
0.0300
0.0200
0.0100
0.0000
–0.0100
–0.0200
Subject
(Gender, Age)
[MMSE Score]
Score of
Impression of
Paro
A
(M, 72)
[20]
–3
B
(M, 80)
[14]
0
C
(M, 84)
[15]
4
D
(F, 80)
[14]
5
E
(M, 76)
[13]
F
(F, 82)
[18]
6 7
G
(F, 74)
[18]
H
(F, 81)
[17]
I
(F, 79)
[18]
J
(F, 81)
[16]
8
K
(F, 81)
[16]
Fig. 7. The relationship between the impression of seal robot, Paro, and its efficacy on 11
patients.
Fig. 8. Patient K holding a seal robot. She treated it like her
grandchild.
D of D α
0.0550
0.0400
0.0300
0.0200
0.0100
0.0000
–0.0100
–0.0200
Subject
B (M, 80) G (F, 74) J (F, 81) K (F, 81) K (F, 79)
(Gender, Age)
[MMSE Score]
[14] [18] [16] [16] [18]
Score of
Impression
of Paro
–4 3 5 6 7
Fig. 9. The relationship between the impression of Paro and
the efficacy of inactivated Paro on five patients whose neuronal
activities improved by the activated Paro.
five subjects: B, G, I, J, and K
(Figure 9). Neuronal activities of
subjects K and I, whose impressions
of Paro were relatively high,
were improved by the interaction
with the inactivated Paro. However,
the changes of D a were
smaller than when they interacted
with the activated Paro. In fact,
their interactions with the inactivated
Paro were quite different
from those with the activated
Paro. They rarely touched it, and
never spoke to it. In addition,
none of them said, ‘‘I want to play
more with Paro.’’
Discussion
Art therapy [3], music therapy,
animal therapy, and so on are
known to be effective in delaying
the onset of dementia. However,
these therapies require welltrained
therapists. In addition,
animal therapy has problems of safety and sanitation. Learning
therapy requires patient effort for continuation. Pharmaceutical
treatment is also available to prevent the progress of
dementia but has side effects. In contrast, robot therapy using
the seal robot Paro is safe, convenient, and does not require
special skills, places, or other tools.
In Figure 5, the four patients whose impression of Paro was
most positive were all women. Women interacted with Paro
willingly and treated it as if it was a real puppy or kitten. On
the other hand, most males just watched Paro’s behavior and
did not interact with it positively, even though they commented
that it was cute. One man commented, ‘‘It is boring
because it is not a real animal.’’ Moreover, males generally
feel that playing with stuffed toys is girlish. We considered
that these differences influenced the effects of Paro.
Influences of robot therapy on patients F and G were opposite,
even though their total scores of their impressions of Paro
were the same. Patient G disliked animals but wanted to interact
with Paro. This desire might enhance the effects of Paro,
and she immediately accepted Paro as if it was a real animal.
On the other hand, patient F felt Paro was an artificial thing in a
part of her mind, even though she treated it like a child. We
consider that this difference resulted in opposing influences on
their cortical neuron activity. As for patient B, his cortical neuron
activity improved by robot therapy despite his poor score
on his impression of Paro. When the experimenter was listening
to patient B’s impression of Paro, people around him
laughed at his negative answer because he interacted with Paro
very happily. His answers to the questionnaire might have
been influenced by embarrassment.
As for the inactivated Paro, neuronal activities improved
in two subjects whose impression of Paro was relatively
high. Harlow examined the reactions of a child monkey to
two surrogate mother monkeys consisting of only hard wire
or hard wire-covered with a soft blanket [45]. He found that
the child monkey was more attracted to the soft surrogate
mother monkey, and often hugged it. Softness brought the
child monkey comfort and peace. This experiment showed us
IEEE ENGINEERING IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY MAGAZINE JULY/AUGUST 2008