Social and Emotional Robots for Aging Well?

Abstract

Nowadays it is widely accepted that information and communication technologies can open up new lines of support and enrich later life. But what about robots? In 1985, the book A Robot in Every Home by Mike Higgins was published. It provided an overview of the available first-generation personal robots such as Topo, Hero 1, RB5X, Hubot, Hero Jr., Turtle Tot, FED, Dingbot, Verbot, and Omnibot. Although they were restricted in use, Higgins took up the issue of whether “robots can be companions” and forecasted that pet robots would in the future provide companionship – without the constraints of a living animal or a human being. Robots may be suitable for people with all kinds of restrictions and disabilities (e.g., dementia): They never get tired, they never complain, they are “patient,” and they never take personal offense. In the meantime, these ideas have found their way into reality. For about 15 years, Paro, a cuddly therapeutic seal, has been tested in different pilot projects around the world and is now available internationally. Paro was designed for therapeutic purposes and is a good example of a social and emotional robot, defined as a technical system able to interact with human beings in such a way that these interactions can be regarded as “emotional.” Its main purpose is to be a companion, of course, though not exclusively, for people with cognitive impairments. Personal and service robotics is advancing quickly, and a variety of prototypes have already been tested in real-life settings. The abilities of these robots are far beyond those of Paro. Both types of robot have in common that people tend to deal with them as if they are real living “subjects.” On the other hand, these developments raise concerns and issues that need to be discussed from a scientific perspective. What empirical evidence is available that social and emotional robots do in fact enrich or facilitate daily life, as measured in terms of an outcome related to aging well, such as communication, social exchange, independence, or well-being? Is it ethical to use robots in the provision of care for the elderly? Do these devices really contribute to better care? Can they be regarded as providing a therapeutic intervention? Will they replace professional staff? What outcomes have been postulated, and how can the effects be measured? What will happen to caring processes and society if human interaction is replaced by human-robot interaction? These questions should be dealt with as soon as possible, particularly in view of today’s international discussions: China, for example, expects every second household to be equipped with social robots in the very near future (see the discussion at the International Conference of Social Robotics ICSR 2012 in Chengdu, China; Chen, 2012). The debate is necessary in order to participate in and shape robotic developments and their fields of application – especially when these are vulnerable groups. The present issue of GeroPsych sheds some light on these topics by giving an overview of ongoing research and discussions on emotional and social robotics. The first contribution on evidence and deploymentbased research into care for the elderly using socially assistive robots by Thorsten Kolling and colleagues presents a review of evaluation studies on Paro as well as an insight into their shortcomings, and develops ideas to overcome these. The experiences gathered to date with Paro as a therapeutic robot in nursing care homes in Denmark, Germany, and the UK are highlighted in the contribution of Barbara Klein and colleagues. Unlike Paro, Care-O-Bot looks like a robot and has many more functions and capabilities. Patrizia Marti and Jelle Stienstra have studied the extent to which interaction with this robot companion helps elderly people to live independently in their homes in Italy. The difficulties of developing an adequate research design for robot interventions in care homes specialized in psychogeriatric care are reflected in the contribution of Roger Bemelmans and colleagues. Dealing with robots evokes many ethical concerns, which are systematically analyzed in the contribution by Catrin Misselhorn and colleagues. GeroPsych, 26 (2), 2013, 81–82