research-article

Open access

Care Workers Making Use of Robots: Results of a Three-Month Study on Human-Robot Interaction within a Care Home

Authors:

Isabel Schwaninger,

Adrian Preussner,

Rainer Wieching,

Geraldine Fitzpatrick,

Volker WulfAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Article No.: 631, Pages 1 - 15

https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517435

Published: 29 April 2022 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Research on social robots in care has often focused on either the care recipients or the technology itself, neglecting the care workers who, in and through their collaborative and coordinative practices, will need to work with the robots. To better understand these interactions with a social robot (Pepper), we undertook a 3 month long-term study within a care home to gain empirical insights into the way the robot was used. We observed how care workers learned to use the device, applied it to their daily work life, and encountered obstacles. Our findings show that the care workers used the robot regularly (1:07 hours/day) mostly in one-to-one interactions with residents. While the robot had a limited effect on reducing the workload of care workers, it had other positive effects, demonstrating the potential to enhance the quality of care.

Supplemental Material

MP4 File

Talk Video

Transcript for: Talk Video

References

[1]

Elizabeth L Anderson, Paul Turnham, John R Griffin, and Chester C Clarke. 2020. Consideration of the aerosol transmission for COVID-19 and public health. Risk Analysis 40, 5 (2020), 902–907.

[2]

Stefanie Baisch, Thorsten Kolling, Saskia Rühl, Barbara Klein, Johannes Pantel, Frank Oswald, and Monika Knopf. 2018. [Emotional robots in a nursing context : Empirical analysis of the present use and the effects of Paro and Pleo]. Z. Gerontol. Geriatr. 51, 1 (Jan 2018), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-017-1346-8 arXiv:29218400

[3]

Markus Bajones, David Fischinger, Astrid Weiss, Daniel Wolf, and Susanne Frennert. 2018. Hobbit: Providing Fall Detection and Prevention for the Elderly in the Real World. Journal of Robotics 2018 (Jun 2018), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1754657

[4]

Kimberly A. Barchard, Leiszle Lapping-Carr, R. Shane Westfall, Andrea Fink-Armold, Santosh Balajee Banisetty, and David Feil-Seifer. 2020. Measuring the Perceived Social Intelligence of Robots. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 9, 4, Article 24 (Sept. 2020), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415139

Digital Library

[5]

Heidrun Becker. 2018. Robotik in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Hoffnungen, Befürchtungen und Akzeptanz aus Sicht der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. In Pflegeroboter. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 229–248.

[6]

Roger Bemelmans, Gert Jan Gelderblom, Pieter Jonker, and Luc de Witte. 2012. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 13, 2 (Feb 2012), 114–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002 arXiv:21450215

[7]

Alexis E Block and Katherine J Kuchenbecker. 2019. Softness, warmth, and responsiveness improve robot hugs. International Journal of Social Robotics 11, 1 (2019), 49–64.

[8]

Jeanette L. Blomberg and Austin Henderson. 1990. Reflections on Participatory Design: Lessons from the Trillium Experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seattle, Washington, USA) (CHI ’90). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97307

Digital Library

[9]

Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke, Nikki Hayfield, and Gareth Terry. 2018. Thematic Analysis. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_103-1

[10]

AA Burstein, Olivia DaDalt, Birgit Kramer, Lisa A D’Ambrosio, and Joseph F Coughlin. 2015. Dementia caregivers and technology acceptance: interest outstrips awareness. Gerontechnology 14, 1 (2015), 45–56.

[11]

Maurizio Bussolo, Johannes Koettl, and Emily Sinnott. 2015. Golden aging: Prospects for healthy, active, and prosperous aging in Europe and Central Asia. World Bank Publications.

[12]

Antonio Carnevale. 2015. Robots, Disability, and Good Human Life. Disability Studies Quarterly 35, 1 (Feb. 2015). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i1.4604

[13]

Felix Carros. 2019. Roboter in der Pflege, ein Schreckgespenst?. In Mensch und Computer 2019 - Workshopband. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2019-ws-588

[14]

Felix Carros, Johanna Meurer, Diana Löffler, David Unbehaun, Sarah Matthies, Inga Koch, Rainer Wieching, Dave Randall, Marc Hassenzahl, and Volker Wulf. 2020. Exploring human-robot interaction with the elderly: results from a ten-week case study in a care home. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.

Digital Library

[15]

Maartje de Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan van Dijk. 2017. Why Do They Refuse to Use My Robot? Reasons for Non-Use Derived from a Long-Term Home Study. In HRI ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020236

Digital Library

[16]

Maartje M.A. de Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Tineke Klamer. 2015. Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior 43 (Feb. 2015), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030

Digital Library

[17]

Dmitry Dereshev, David Kirk, Kohei Matsumura, and Toshiyuki Maeda. 2019. Long-Term Value of Social Robots through the Eyes of Expert Users. In CHI ’19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300896

Digital Library

[18]

Kathleen England and Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat. 2017. Demographic trends and public health in Europe. European Journal of Public Health 27, suppl_4 (Oct. 2017), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx159

[19]

Connor Esterwood, Kyle Essenmacher, Han Yang, Fanpan Zeng, and Lionel Peter Robert. 2021. A Meta-Analysis of Human Personality and Robot Acceptance in Human-Robot Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445542

Digital Library

[20]

Laura Fiorini, Kasia Tabeau, Grazia D’Onofrio, Luigi Coviello, Marleen De Mul, Daniele Sancarlo, Isabelle Fabbricotti, and Filippo Cavallo. 2020. Co-creation of an assistive robot for independent living: lessons learned on robot design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 14, 2 (Jun 2020), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00641-z

[21]

Marc Hanheide, Denise Hebesberger, and Tomáš Krajník. 2017. The When, Where, and How: An Adaptive Robotic Info-Terminal for Care Home Residents. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Vienna, Austria) (HRI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020228

Digital Library

[22]

Patrick Hock, Chika Oshima, and Koichi Nakayama. 2018. CATARO: a robot that tells caregivers a patient’s current non-critical condition indirectly. In GECCO ’18: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1841–1844. https://doi.org/10.1145/3205651.3208264

Digital Library

[23]

Eva Hornecker, Andreas Bischof, Philipp Graf, Lena Franzkowiak, and Norbert Krüger. 2020. The Interactive Enactment of Care Technologies and Its Implications for Human-Robot-Interaction in Care. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (Tallinn, Estonia) (NordiCHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 78, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420103

Digital Library

[24]

Julie Huschilt and Laurie Clune. 2012. The use of socially assistive robots for dementia care. J. Gerontol. Nurs. 38, 10 (Oct 2012), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20120911-02 arXiv:22998095

[25]

Hirokazu Ito, M. Miyagawa, Y. Kuwamura, Yuko Yasuhara, T. Tanioka, and R. Locsin. 2015. Professional Nurses ’ Attitudes towards the Introduction of Humanoid Nursing Robots (HNRs) in Health Care Settings., 73–81 pages.

[26]

C.D. Kidd, W. Taggart, and S. Turkle. 2006. A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006.3972–3976. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2006.1642311

[27]

Seongseop Sam Kim, Jungkeun Kim, Frank Badu-Baiden, Marilyn Giroux, and Youngjoon Choi. 2021. Preference for robot service or human service in hotels? Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Management 93 (2021), 102795.

[28]

Naoki Koyama, Kazuaki Tanaka, Kohei Ogawa, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2017. Emotional or Social? How to Enhance Human-Robot Social Bonding. In HAI ’17: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1145/3125739.3125742

Digital Library

[29]

Birgit Kramer. 2013. Dementia Caregivers in Germany and Their Acceptance of New Technologies for Care: The Information Gap: Figure 1.Public Policy & Aging Report 24, 1 (Dec. 2013), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prt002

[30]

Hee Rin Lee, Selma Šabanović, Wan-Ling Chang, Shinichi Nagata, Jennifer Piatt, Casey Bennett, and David Hakken. 2017. Steps Toward Participatory Design of Social Robots: Mutual Learning with Older Adults with Depression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Vienna, Austria) (HRI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020237

Digital Library

[31]

Iolanda Leite, Carlos Martinho, and Ana Paiva. 2013. Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey. Int. J. Social Rob. 5, 2 (Apr 2013), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y

[32]

Henry Lieberman, Fabio Paternò, Markus Klann, and Volker Wulf. 2006. End-user development: An emerging paradigm. In End user development. Springer, 1–8.

[33]

Stephen Lindsay, Daniel Jackson, Guy Schofield, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. Engaging Older People Using Participatory Design. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1199–1208. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208570

Digital Library

[34]

Rob McCarney, James Warner, Steve Iliffe, Robbert van Haselen, Mark Griffin, and Peter Fisher. 2007. The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7, 1 (July 2007). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-30

[35]

Helinä Melkas, Lea Hennala, Satu Pekkarinen, and Ville Kyrki. 2020. Impacts of robot implementation on care personnel and clients in elderly-care institutions. International Journal of Medical Informatics 134 (2020), 104041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104041

[36]

Marc Mitchell and Lena Kan. 2019. Digital technology and the future of health systems. Health Systems & Reform 5, 2 (2019), 113–120.

[37]

Tracy L. Mitzner, Charles C. Kemp, Wendy Rogers, and Lorenza Tiberio. 2013. Investigating Healthcare Providers’ Acceptance of Personal Robots for Assisting with Daily Caregiving Tasks. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI EA ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468444

Digital Library

[38]

Sanika Moharana, Alejandro E. Panduro, Hee Rin Lee, and Laurel D. Riek. 2019. Robots for joy, robots for sorrow: community based robot design for dementia caregivers. In HRI ’19: Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 458–467. https://doi.org/10.5555/3378680.3378757

Digital Library

[39]

Claudia Müller, Cornelius Neufeldt, David Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2012. ICT-development in residential care settings: sensitizing design to the life circumstances of the residents of a care home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2639–2648.

Digital Library

[40]

Goldie Nejat, Yiyuan Sun, and Mary Nies. 2008. Assistive Robots in Health Care Settings. Home Health Care Management & Practice 21, 3 (Jul 2008), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1084822308325695

[41]

Leysia Ann Palen. 1997. Groupware Adoption and Adaptation. In CHI ’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia) (CHI EA ’97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 67–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120257

Digital Library

[42]

Joseph Andrew Pepito and Rozzano Locsin. 2019. Can nurses remain relevant in a technologically advanced future?International Journal of Nursing Sciences 6, 1 (2019), 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2018.09.013

[43]

Maribel Pino, Mélodie Boulay, François Jouen, and Anne-Sophie Rigaud. 2015. ”Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Front. Aging Neurosci. 7 (Jul 2015), 141.https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141 arXiv:26257646

[44]

David Randall, Richard Harper, and Mark Rouncefield. 2007. Fieldwork for design: theory and practice. Springer Science & Business Media.

Digital Library

[45]

Selma Šabanović and Wan-Ling Chang. 2016. Socializing robots: constructing robotic sociality in the design and use of the assistive robot PARO. AI and Society 31, 4 (2016), 537–551.

Digital Library

[46]

Alessandra Maria Sabelli, Takayuki Kanda, and Norihiro Hagita. 2011. A conversational robot in an elderly care center: an ethnographic study. In HRI ’11: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957669

Digital Library

[47]

Kjeld Schmidt. 2018. Practice and technology: on the conceptual foundations of practice-centered computing. In Socio-informatics: A Practice-based Perspective on the Design and Use of IT Artifacts. Oxford University Press, 47–103.

[48]

Isabel Schwaninger, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and Astrid Weiss. 2019. Exploring Trust in Human-Agent Collaboration. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET) (2019). https://dl.eusset.eu/handle/20.500.12015/3257

[49]

Isabel Schwaninger, Florian Güldenpfennig, Astrid Weiss, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2021. What Do You Mean by Trust? Establishing Shared Meaning in Interdisciplinary Design for Assistive Technology. Int. J. Social Rob. (Jun 2021), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00742-w

[50]

Roger Andre Søraa, Pernille Søderholm Nyvoll, Karoline Blix Grønvik, and J Artur Serrano. 2021. Children’s perceptions of social robots: a study of the robots Pepper, AV1 and Tessa at Norwegian research fairs. AI & society 36(2021), 205–216.

[51]

Gunnar Stevens and Volkmar Pipek. 2018. Making Use: Understanding, Studying and supporting appropriation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198733249.003.0005

[52]

Tobias Störzinger, Felix Carros, Anne Wierling, Catrin Misselhorn, and Rainer Wieching. 2020. Categorizing Social Robots with Respect to Dimensions Relevant to Ethical, Social and Legal Implications. i-com 19, 1 (2020), 47–57.

[53]

Nicole Strutz, Simone Kuntz, Nils Lahmann, and Anika Steinert. 2020. Analysis of the technical readiness and usage of nursing innovation technologies by personnel in the nursing process. HeilberufeScience 11(2020), 27–34.

[54]

Rachel E. Stuck and Wendy A. Rogers. 2018. Older Adults’ Perceptions of Supporting Factors of Trust in a Robot Care Provider. J. Rob. 2018 (Apr 2018). https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6519713

[55]

S. Shyam Sundar, T. Franklin Waddell, and Eun Hwa Jung. 2016. The Hollywood robot syndrome: Media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. Penn State (Apr 2016), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451771

[56]

Ryuichi Tanioka, Rozzano Locsin, Yuko Yasuhara, Tetsuya Tanioka, 2018. Potential legal issues and care implications during care-prevention gymnastic exercises for the elderly using Pepper in long term health care facilities. Intelligent Control and Automation 9, 03 (2018), 85.

[57]

Dominic M Thomas and Robert P Bostrom. 2010. Team leader strategies for enabling collaboration technology adaptation: team technology knowledge to improve globally distributed systems development work. European Journal of Information Systems 19, 2 (2010), 223–237.

[58]

Turja Tuuli and Parviainen Jaana. 2020. The Use of Affective Care Robots Calls Forth Value-based Consideration. In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 950–955. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223336

[59]

David Unbehaun, Konstantin Aal, Felix Carros, Rainer Wieching, and Volker Wulf. 2019. Creative and Cognitive Activities in Social Assistive Robots and Older Adults: Results from an Exploratory Field Study with Pepper. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work-Demos and Posters. European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).

[60]

Tijs Vandemeulebroucke, Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, and Chris Gastmans. 2018. The use of care robots in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 74 (Jan 2018), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014 arXiv:28926749

[61]

Ina Wagner. 2018. Critical reflections on participation in design. In Socio-Informatics. Oxford University Press.

[62]

Lin Wan, Claudia Müller, Volker Wulf, and David William Randall. 2014. Addressing the Subtleties in Dementia Care: Pre-Study and Evaluation of a GPS Monitoring System. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3987–3996. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557307

Digital Library

[63]

Xi Vincent Wang and Lihui Wang. 2021. A literature survey of the robotic technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Manufacturing Systems(2021).

[64]

Gregor Wolbring and Sophya Yumakulov. 2014. Social Robots: Views of Staff of a Disability Service Organization. International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 3 (March 2014), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0229-z

[65]

Ya-Huei Wu, Jérémy Wrobel, Mélanie Cornuet, Hélène Kerhervé, Souad Damnée, and Anne-Sophie Rigaud. 2014. Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting. Clin. Interv. Aging 9 (May 2014), 801–11. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S56435 arXiv:24855349

[66]

Volker Wulf. 1994. Anpaßbarbarkeit im Prozeß evolutionärer Systementwicklung.

[67]

Sangseok You, Lionel P. Robert, and Soo Young Rieh. 2015. The Appropriation Paradox: Benefits and Burdens of Appropriating Collaboration Technologies. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI EA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1741–1746. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732919

Digital Library

[68]

Ye Yuan and Svetlana Yarosh. 2019. Beyond Tutoring: Opportunities for Intergenerational Mentorship at a Community Level. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300679

Digital Library

[69]

Jan C. Zöllick, Adelheid Kuhlmey, Ralf Suhr, Simon Eggert, Johanna Nordheim, and Stefan Blüher. 2020. Akzeptanz von Technikeinsatz in der Pflege. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58935-9_17

Cited By

Paluch RCarros FVolkova GObaid MMüller C(2025)Editorial: Creative approaches to appropriation and design: novel robotic systems for heterogeneous contextsFrontiers in Robotics and AI10.3389/frobt.2024.153113211Online publication date: 3-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2024.1531132
Schulz DUnbehaun DDoernbach T(2025)Investigating the effects of embodiment on presence and perception in remote physician video consultations: a between-participants study comparing a tablet and a telepresence roboti-com10.1515/icom-2024-0045Online publication date: 14-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2024-0045
Rass EUnbehaun DAal KTandler JLenz GWulf V(2025)Designing for those who are Overlooked - Investigating long-term Impacts of Social Robotics for People with Advanced Dementia, Caregivers and Relatives in a Secured Care EnvironmentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/37011909:1(1-30)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3701190
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Care Workers Making Use of Robots: Results of a Three-Month Study on Human-Robot Interaction within a Care Home
1. General and reference
  1. Cross-computing tools and techniques
    1. Empirical studies
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Collaborative and social computing devices
  2. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI

Recommendations

Zoomorphic Robots and People with Disabilities
MuC '22: Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2022

Although zoomorphic robots are already popular as companions in some parts of the world, like Japan, they are still a niche product in Germany and are primarily present in academia. In this study, we analyse the effects of the new version of the ...
The Interactive Enactment of Care Technologies and its Implications for Human-Robot-Interaction in Care
NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

Various technical innovations for the care sector, particularly robots, are being developed to cope with demographic change and to support nursing staff. A central issue for the successful integration of such technology into gerontological care ...
Technology for Supporting Care Staff in Residential Homes

Care staff, those who attend to the day-to-day needs of people in residential facilities, represent an important segment of the health-care provision of those entrusted to their care. The potential use of technology by care staff has not been a focus of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2022

10459 pages

ISBN:9781450391573

DOI:10.1145/3491102

Editors:
Simone Barbosa
PUC-Rio, Brazil
,
Cliff Lampe
University of Michigan, USA
,
Caroline Appert
Université Paris-Saclay, France
,
David A. Shamma
Toyota Research Institute, USA
,
Steven Drucker
Microsoft Research, USA
,
Julie Williamson
University of Glasgow, UK
,
Koji Yatani
University of Tokyo, Japan

Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 29 April 2022

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

European Union H2020

Conference

CHI '22

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 29 - May 5, 2022

LA, New Orleans, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025

Sponsor:
sigchi

ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

28
Total Citations
View Citations
2,546
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)713
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)73

Reflects downloads up to 13 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Paluch RCarros FVolkova GObaid MMüller C(2025)Editorial: Creative approaches to appropriation and design: novel robotic systems for heterogeneous contextsFrontiers in Robotics and AI10.3389/frobt.2024.153113211Online publication date: 3-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2024.1531132
Schulz DUnbehaun DDoernbach T(2025)Investigating the effects of embodiment on presence and perception in remote physician video consultations: a between-participants study comparing a tablet and a telepresence roboti-com10.1515/icom-2024-0045Online publication date: 14-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2024-0045
Rass EUnbehaun DAal KTandler JLenz GWulf V(2025)Designing for those who are Overlooked - Investigating long-term Impacts of Social Robotics for People with Advanced Dementia, Caregivers and Relatives in a Secured Care EnvironmentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/37011909:1(1-30)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3701190
Stegner LPaluch RHsu LCollins SHu YGreuèl MKodate NMüller CMutlu BŠabanović S(2024)RoboCare Design Workshop: Understanding, Translating, Operationalizing, and Scaling Up Design Knowledge Regarding Robotic Systems for Care AssistanceCompanion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3656156.3658395(421-423)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3656156.3658395
Frijns HVetter RHirschmanner MGrabler RVogel LKoeszegi S(2024)Co-design of Robotic Technology with Care Home Residents and Care WorkersProceedings of the 17th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments10.1145/3652037.3652070(177-186)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3652037.3652070
Petterson AJaimes Rodriguez IDoggett OChandra P(2024)Networks of care in digital domestic labour economiesProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642200(1-16)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642200
Trovato GDu YMitchell STrevejo FCondori RKatagiri MObe RGawande MCosentino SManavi MCarros FWieching R(2024)CelesTE, theomorphic device for cognitive support of older adults2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO)10.1109/ARSO60199.2024.10557814(200-205)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO60199.2024.10557814
Shin HLee O(2024)Who is behind the robot? The role of public social workers in implementing robotic eldercare program in South KoreaSocial Work in Health Care10.1080/00981389.2024.232484963:4-5(311-327)Online publication date: 6-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2024.2324849
Abbate LGermak C(2024)Human-Robot-Human: The Natural Dimension of the Telepresence Robotics DesignFor Nature/With Nature: New Sustainable Design Scenarios10.1007/978-3-031-53122-4_38(637-656)Online publication date: 4-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53122-4_38
González AGeiskkovitch DYoung J(2023)Say what you want, I’m not listening!i-com10.1515/icom-2022-004722:1(19-32)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2022-0047
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten