Presentation on theme: "Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment"— Presentation transcript:
1 Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment Marcel HeerinkInstituut voor Information Engineering - Hogeschool van AmsterdamUniversiteit van Amsterdam - Human Computer Systems & Intelligent Systemsco-researchers:Vanessa Evers, Bob Wielinga , Ben Krose
4 Research questionIs there a measurable influence of perceived social abilities on the acceptance of autonomous interactive systems by elders in an eldercare environment?
5 Approach Quantitative research iCat Wizard of Oz +S and –S version QuestionnaireObservationsFunctional and conversational acceptanceField experiment: 2 eldercare institutions (Archipel and Ankerplaats)
6 Abilities listening attentively (looking at the participant, nodding), being nice and pleasant to interact with (smiling, being helpful),remembering little personal details about people (using their names),being expressive,admitting mistakes.
8 Possible functionalities Agenda/reminderDevice interfaceMonitorCompanion
9 Questionnaire UTAUT + SA = social abilities (-) PE = performance expectancyEE = effort expectancySI = social influenceAT = attitude toward using technologySE = self-efficacyANX = anxietyITU = intention to use+ SA = social abilities (-)+ feeling comfortable talking to a robot (conversational acceptance)5 point scaleQuestions instead of statements
15 Results 1 Construct Cronbach’s Alpha t Sig. (2-tailed) performance expectancy,7649-0,13270,8953effort expectancy,86100,36220,7195social influence,2997*0,34530,7322attitude toward using technology,88890,49610,6230self-efficacy,89420,45670,6509anxiety,4303*-0,00460,9964intention to use,89540,40360,6891all constructs,9346all questions,9084
16 Results 2 Did you feel uncomfortable talking to a robot? condition N MeantSig. (2-tailed)more social171,00-3,75000,0015less social191,53
17 Results 3 Would you want to use the iCat immediately if you could? genderNMeantSig. (2-tailed)male111,452,17170,0426female250,72
18 Observations conversational expressions by participants more social less socialnodding head6654shaking head1615greet with hand2'don't know' gesture3move away4approach robot177smile4230laugh269surpriseshow irritation (frown)1verbal greeting3621
19 Observations 2 Item t Sig. (2-tailed) Mann-Whitney U Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)Positive 12,4500,02092,0000,027Negative 2-1,6850,108131,000All items2,0630,047102,5000,060
21 Conclusions & discussion UTAUT constructs show no significant differences between more en less social conditionThere are significant differences concerning “conversational acceptance”: participants felt more uncomfortable and used more conversational expressions with a more social robotOther differences are related to gender (could be a generation related result)Further research:On screen agentsDifferent experimental conditions?Work on ‘social abilities?’More elaborate observation model