Content uploaded by Cory-Ann Smarr
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cory-Ann Smarr on Mar 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Understanding the Potential for Robot Assistance for
Older Adults in the Home Environment
Technical Report HFA-TR-1102
Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Psychology – Human Factors and Aging Laboratory
CORY-ANN SMARR
CARA BAILEY FAUSSET
WENDY A. ROGERS
Requests for more information may be sent to Wendy A. Rogers, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0170 (electronic mail to wendy@gatech.edu)
2
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health
(National Institute on Aging) Grant P01 AG17211 under the auspices of the Center for Research
and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE; www.create-center.org). The
report was inspired by our collaboration with Willow Garage (www.willowgarage.com) who
selected the Georgia Institute of Technology as a beta PR2 site for research
(www.willowgarage.com/blog/2010/06/07/spotlight-georgia-tech).
This project is a collaborative research effort on human-robot interaction between the
Human Factors and Aging Laboratory (Co-Directors Wendy A. Rogers and Arthur D. Fisk;
www.hfaging.org) and the Healthcare Robotics Laboratory (Director: Charles C. Kemp;
www.healthcare-robotics.com). Many thanks to the researchers in both laboratories for their
contributions.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4
Activities of Daily Living .............................................................................................................. 6
Living Arrangements of Older Adults ........................................................................................ 8
Impact of Age-Related Changes on Activities of Daily Living ................................................. 9
Physical Limitations................................................................................................................ 10
Perceptual Limitations ........................................................................................................... 11
Cognitive Limitations ............................................................................................................. 12
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 13
Robot Assistance for Older Adults ............................................................................................ 15
Currently Available Robot Assistance for Older Adults in the Home ................................... 15
Search Method ........................................................................................................................ 16
Search Results ......................................................................................................................... 16
Patterns in Robot Assistance...................................................................................................... 21
Robot assistance for ADLs 16
Robot assistance for IADLs 17
Robot assistance for EADLs 18
Robot assistance for other activities 19
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 23
Future Directions and Challenges ......................................................................................... 24
References .................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix: Robot Assistance for ADLs, IADLS, and EADLs ................................................. 32
4
Executive Summary
Robots with a wide range of capabilities are being developed that could provide
assistance for older adults to perform activities of daily living. Robots have the potential to
support the various physical, perceptual, and cognitive aspects of tasks of everyday living. The
overall goal of the current literature review was to understand how robots can support older
adults’ independence by assisting with difficult tasks in the home environment.
Older adults prefer to age in place (AARP, 2005). However, there are many tasks that
older adults must perform to maintain their independence and health, including self-maintenance,
instrumental, and enhanced activities of daily living (Lawton, 1990; Rogers, Meyer, Walker, &
Fisk, 1998). Self-maintenance activities of daily living (ADLs) include the ability to toilet, feed,
dress, groom, bathe, and ambulate. Instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) include the
ability to successfully use the telephone, shop, prepare food, do the housekeeping and laundry,
manage medications and finances, and use transportation. Enhanced activities of daily living
(EADLs) include participation in social and enriching activities, such as learning new skills and
engaging in hobbies.
Age-related changes in physical, perceptual, and cognitive abilities may make performing
these tasks more difficult or challenging for older adults. The first objective of this report was to
identify the range of tasks for which older adults could benefit from robot support. The second
objective was to describe illustrative examples of existing robots that have the potential to
address some of those needs.
From the literature we identified several activities of daily living with which older adults
experience difficulty. Walking, getting in/out of bed/chairs, and bathing/showering were the
most frequent ADLs with which community dwelling older adults experienced limitations
5
(Disability and Activity Limitations, 2009). IADLs with which older adults experienced
difficulty included housekeeping, meal preparation, and outdoor home maintenance tasks
(Fausset, Kelly, Rogers, & Fisk, in press; Rogers, Walker, Meyer, & Fisk, 1998; Seidel et al.,
2009). Older adults indicated that even leisure activities (EADLs) can be difficult or frustrating
due to limited physical ability or limited technological knowledge (Rogers et al., 1998).
Our review revealed many robots that could purportedly support the range of activities of
daily living for which older adults have difficulties; some robots have the ability to assist with
multiple activities. A total of 147 robots were identified that have the potential to support ADLs,
IADLs, and EADLS. Seventy robots were identified that may have the capabilities to support
ADLs, 42 robots support IADLs, and 61 robots support EADLs. The robots we identified have
the potential to support ambulation in two different ways: (1) by reducing the need to move, or
(2) by supporting the physical movement. Most of the robots found were developed to support
ambulation (an ADL), housekeeping (an IADL), and social communication (an EADL).
In summary, many robots are being developed or are currently available that could
potentially support older adults’ activities of daily living. By assisting older adults in
maintaining their independence in the home environment, robots have the potential to enable
older adults to remain in their homes longer, supporting their preference to age in place.
Furthermore, by supporting aging in place, robots may be able to delay an undesired move to
assisted living or nursing residence (see Mitzner, Chen, Kemp, & Rogers, 2011, for more details
about older adults' transition from living independently to assisted living.)
6
Aging Population and Age-Related Changes
Older adults, people age 65 or older (Erber, 2005), represented 11% of the world
population in 2009, and the percentage is expected to double by 2050 (United Nations, 2010).
Similar demographic trends exist for the United States; persons 65 and older are expected to
represent 19% of the population by 2030 (Administration on Aging, 2010).
A primary goal of older adults is to age in their own homes (AARP, 2005), but age-
related changes might threaten this goal of independent living. Certain abilities are maintained
or improve with age, such as semantic knowledge (Ackerman, 2008) or everyday problem
solving and emotion regulation (Blanchard-Fields, 2007). However, there are other abilities that
decline with age. Fine motor skills, balance, and strength diminish (Cavanaugh & Blanchard-
Fields, 2006; Newell, Vaillancourt, & Sosnoff, 2006; Vercruyssen, 1997). Vision acuity and
hearing decline with age (Schieber, 2006; Schneider & Pichora-Fuller, 2000), and cognitive
abilities such as working memory (Hoyer & Verhaeghen, 2006) also decrease. For an overview
of age-related changes in capabilities, see Fisk, Rogers, Charness, Czaja, and Sharit (2009).
These age-related declines in physical, perceptual, and cognitive abilities may negatively impact
older adults’ ability to maintain their independence in their home environment.
Activities of Daily Living
To live independently, people must be able to successfully perform a wide range of tasks
related to activities of daily living. These activities can be described in three broad classes: (1)
Self-Maintenance Activities of Daily Living or ADLs (Lawton, 1990; Lawton & Brody, 1969),
(2) Instrumental Activities of Daily Living or IADLs (Lawton; Lawton & Brody), and (3)
Enhanced Activities of Daily Living or EADLs (Rogers et al., 1998).
7
ADLs are physical tasks essential to maintaining one’s independence and include the
ability to toilet, feed, dress, groom, bathe, and ambulate. IADLs are typically more cognitively
demanding than ADLs, and include the ability to successfully use the telephone, shop, prepare
food, do the housekeeping and laundry, manage medications and finances, and use transportation
outside of the home (e.g., driving a car, using public transit, or riding in a taxi). EADLs include
participation in social and enriching activities, such as learning new skills and engaging in
hobbies. These categories constitute most of the tasks older adults spend their time performing
in the home environment; essentially, older adults want to make their time there as enjoyable and
productive as possible (Baltes & Lang, 1997).
Age-related declines in physical, perceptual, and cognitive abilities may make performing
activities of daily living tasks difficult for older adults. Figure 1 illustrates the self-maintenance
activities of daily living in which non-institutionalized older adults were limited (Disability and
Activity Limitations, 2009). Over 25% of adults over the age of 65 had limitations with walking,
whereas only 6% of older adults experienced limitations with eating. Note that the rate of
limitations in activities among persons 85 and older is much higher than those for persons 65-74
years of age. For example, less than 20% of adults aged 65-74 years are limited in their ability to
walk, whereas over 45% of adults over the age of 85 years are limited in their ability to walk.
These data highlight potential areas of support that could benefit older adults in achieving their
goal of independent living.
8
Figure 1. The percentage of non-institutionalized older adults that experience limitations in
activities of daily living by age group (Disability and Activity Limitations, 2009, Figure 9).
Living Arrangements of Older Adults
The majority of older adults are not infirm or unable to care for themselves. In 2008,
only 4% of older adults lived in institutional settings (nursing home facility or assisted living
facility; Living Arrangements, 2010). However, the percentage of older adults residing in
institutional settings does increase with age, which is consistent with an age-related increase
ADL limitations (see Figure 1): 1.3% for 65-74 year olds to 3.8% for 75-84 year olds to over
15% for persons older than 85 years (Living Arrangements, 2010).
Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of Medicare enrollees age 65 and over with functional
limitations by residential setting (Older Americans, 2010). Of the older adults who live in a
9
traditional community residential setting, 40% experience one or more functional limitations.
Figure 2 emphasizes the fact that even people who live independently are experiencing one or
more ADL or IADL limitations for which they could benefit from support.
Figure 2. The percentage of older adult Medicare enrollees age 65 and over with functional
limitations by residential setting (Older Americans, 2010, Indicator 36, p. 59).
Impact of Age-Related Changes on Activities of Daily Living
Physical, perceptual, and cognitive age-related changes can negatively impact older
adults’ ability to maintain their independence. Below we provide a review of the literature
addressing the impact of age-related changes on activities of daily living. Our review highlights
opportunities for robot assistance for older adults.
10
Physical Limitations
Age-related declines in certain physical abilities can lead to difficulties in activities of
daily living for older adults. Motor limitations were identified as the source of nearly 40% of the
difficulties in performing tasks of everyday living mentioned by community-dwelling older
adults (Rogers et al., 1998). Gross movement issues were the most commonly mentioned
difficulty, whereas fine movements were less frequently mentioned. Difficulty balancing was
also included in this category of motor limitations. These difficulties contributed to limitations
in such activities as housekeeping (IADL), locomotion (ADL), meal preparation (IADL), and
personal grooming (ADL), and illustrate potential tasks for which older adults could benefit from
support.
In a longitudinal assessment of older adults in Great Britain, Seidel and colleagues (2009)
investigated patterns in capability loss and the relationship between limitations of instrumental
activities of daily living. Locomotion and reaching were the most prevalent physical limitations
identified for 32.5% and 25.5% of the participants, respectively. The onset of limitations in
performing IADLs was then related to the older adults’ capabilities. Housework and shopping
were the first tasks for which older adults encountered difficulties.
In one recent investigation, older adults were asked to describe home maintenance tasks
that were or could become difficult to perform (Fausset et al., in press). Nearly 70% of the tasks
described were outdoor-related or cleaning-related. All tasks described were physically
demanding in nature requiring abilities such as strength, balance, bending, and endurance.
Outdoor-related tasks included mowing the lawn, painting the outside of the home, and cleaning
the gutters. Cleaning tasks included vacuuming, changing bed linens, washing dishes, doing
laundry, cleaning the toilet, and taking out the garbage.
11
Fausset et al. (in press) also found that age-related declines in physical abilities
negatively impact older adults’ abilities to perform ADLs and IADLs. Specifically, ambulation
and grooming (ADLs) were identified as difficult or frustrating for older adults to perform.
Difficult IADLs due to physical limitations included housekeeping, meal preparation,
transportation, and shopping. These findings suggest that older adults would benefit greatly
from assistance with physically demanding tasks.
Perceptual Limitations
In a large sample of older adults assessed longitudinally, Seidel et al. (2009) found that
hearing and vision disabilities occurred with a prevalence of 21.7% and 15.3%, respectively.
However, the onset of these perceptual disabilities occurred later in life than the onset of physical
limitations. Moreover, these perceptual limitations did not impact older adults’ ability to
perform instrumental activities of daily living as did physical limitations.
Nevertheless, older adults have identified several ADLs and IADLs that would be
difficult with vision or hearing impairments (Kelly, Fausset, Rogers, & Fisk, 2011; Rogers et al.,
1998). Related to vision limitations, participants mentioned difficulty cooking (IADL), seeing
dust (IADL), dressing (ADL), reading (IADL/EADL), sewing (EADL), and driving
(IADL/EADL). Difficulty moving around the house (ADL) was also described. Participants
mentioned that it would be difficult to hear the doorbell or the telephone with hearing limitations
(IADL).
In summary, age-related changes in perceptual abilities do not impact older adults’ ability
to perform tasks related to activities of daily living to the extent that age-related physical changes
do. However, these data must be interpreted with caution as two of the three studies (Kelly et al.,
2011; Rogers et al., 1998) used a focus group approach; these samples did not include older
12
adults with significant hearing and vision limitations. It is likely that assistance for visual and
auditory limitations would support older adults’ independence in the home for a wide range of
older individuals.
Cognitive Limitations
Age-related changes in cognitive ability negatively impact tasks related to both
instrumental and enhanced activities of daily living (Baltes & Lang, 1997; Kelly et al., 2011;
Rogers et al., 1998; Seidel et al., 2009). Baltes and Lang described the everyday functioning of
485 community-dwelling and institutionalized older adults (age range: 73-103 years) by their
level of cognitive resources. Significant differences emerged between thos described as
“resource rich” in their cognitive capacity versus “resource poor” in cognitive capacity. Only
2% of older adults in the resource rich group resided in institutions, whereas 23% of the resource
poor adults lived in institutions. The resource rich group reported spending more time than the
resource poor group performing the following activities: housekeeping (IADL), physical leisure
(EADL), intellectual-cultural leisure (EADL), and social engagement activities (EADL).
Additional research has demonstrated that cognitive declines impact IADLs. Seidel and
colleagues (2009) identified that the onset of cognitive declines was associated with the onset of
difficulties with transportation and cooking (IADLs). Medication management, cooking, and
prospective memory tasks, such as remembering appointments and grocery lists, were other
IADLs identified as difficult to perform due to cognitive limitations (Kelly et al., 2011). Rogers
et al. (1998) found that older adults had difficulty learning something new and experienced
memory limitations relevant to ADL performance. Working memory limitations resulted in
burning pots while cooking, forgetting where items were placed only moments before, and using
13
telephone menus. Long-term memory limitations made it difficult to remember people’s name
and where items were stored (Rogers et al.).
These studies illustrate that age-related declines in cognitive abilities limit older adults’
ability to perform tasks related to the instrumental and enhanced activities of daily living.
IADLs such as housekeeping, cooking, medication management, using the telephone, using
transportation were difficult for older adults with cognitive limitations. Memory limitations
were the source of frustration or difficulty for remembering grocery lists and appointments.
Activities of leisure were negatively impacted by limitations in cognitive ability as well. Older
adults would benefit from assistance with memory for many tasks related to IADLs and EADLs.
Summary
Age-related declines in physical, perceptual, and cognitive abilities contribute to
limitations in performing activities of daily living. Table 1 provides a summary of age-related
changes in physical, perceptual, and cognitive abilities and the activity of daily living impacted
by the limitation. Assisting older adults in their goal of maintaining their independence in the
home environment means that support for physical limitations followed by cognitive and
perceptual limitations is necessary. Robots can provide that assistance.
14
Table 1
Impact of Age-Related Changes on Activities of Daily Living
Activity of Daily Living Limited
Age-Related
Change Specific
Difficulty ADL IADL EADL
Physical Gross
movement
Balance
Locomotion
Personal
grooming
Transportation
Housekeeping
Meal preparation
Leisure activities
Locomotion
Reaching Housework
Shopping
Strength
Balance
Bending
Endurance
Cleaning tasks
Vacuuming
Changing bed
linens
Washing dishes
Doing laundry
Cleaning toilet
Taking out garbage
Outdoor tasks
Mowing lawn
Painting
Cleaning gutters
Perceptual Vision Dressing
Ambulation Cooking
Dusting
Reading
Driving
Sewing
Reading
Driving
Hearing
Telephone
Doorbell
Cognitive Limitations Transportation
Cooking Difficulty learning
something new
Resource poor Housekeeping Physical leisure
Intellectual-cultural
leisure
Social engagement
Memory Medication
management
Cooking
Remembering
appointments
Remembering
grocery lists
Using telephone
menus
15
Robot Assistance for Older Adults
To help maintain older adults’ independence in the home, tools and technology that can
support older adults with difficult home tasks should be considered. Robots with a wide range of
capabilities are being developed that could provide assistance to older adults for activities of
daily living. Robots have the potential to support the various physical, perceptual, and cognitive
aspects of tasks of everyday living.
A robot can be defined as an embodied “reprogrammable multi-functional manipulator”
containing “sensors, effectors, memory, and some real-time computational apparatus” (Sheridan,
1992, pp. 3-4). Traditionally, robots were designed to perform tasks that are menial, repetitive,
or too hazardous for a human. For example, robots in an automotive factory assemble the same
part on a car repetitively for long periods of time whereas robots in the military defuse bombs or
monitor dangerous territory. However, with advancing technology and increasing research,
robots are intentionally being developed to expand beyond the factory or battlefield and into the
home. Such robots are created with the goals of interacting with and assisting people in their
everyday lives. They are designed with a range of capabilities such as helping a person out of
bed, reminding them of appointments, and facilitating communications with friends and family.
Currently Available Robot Assistance for Older Adults in the Home
We have described the importance of considering different categories of activities that
older adults must engage in to maintain their independence. Older adults often experience
difficulties performing activities in everyday life because of age-related declines in physical,
perceptual, or cognitive abilities. Robots have the potential to assist older adults with their
activities of daily living. We conducted a thorough search of the currently available robots for
the home to determine how they support ADLs, IADLs, and EADLs. The goal of the search was
16
to provide an overview of the availability of robot assistance, whether in development or for sale
on the market. Note that we describe the purported capabilities of robots to support the needs of
older adults – we did not test or verify the robots’ capabilities with users. Our review is meant to
highlight the potential for robots, which has not necessarily been realized yet in these examples.
Robots can provide targeted and adaptable support for different aspects or for the whole
process of daily activities. For example, a person with a motor impairment may have difficulty
with picking up food and bringing it to his or her mouth. A robot such as Secom’s My Spoon
could assist by waiting for the person to indicate what food he or she would like to eat and then
picking up the designated bite-sized morsel and bringing it gently to the mouth. Alternatively, if
a person has cognitive and motor impairments, the robot could assist with the whole process of
eating: selecting the food, picking it up, and bringing it to the mouth.
Search Method
The search was conducted from September 2010 to January 2011 using internet search
engines (e.g., Google Scholar) and literature databases (i.e., EBSCO, INSPEC, IEEE). We
searched for robots using words related to ADLs, IADLs, and EADLs. Key phrases included
“robot[ic]” combined with the whole process of an activity (e.g., feeding robot, robotic
housekeeper) or with an aspect of the activity (e.g., robot cuts food, robotic vacuum).
Additionally, search terms were used that combined “robot”, assistance terms (e.g., aid,
intelligence, smart) and aging (e.g., older adults, eldercare). A complete list of robots can be
found in the Appendix.
Search Results
Robots were classified based on which ADLs, IADLs, and EADLs they had the potential
to support older adults with in the home (see the Appendix). Most robots had the ability to
17
perform multiple tasks within the ADL, IADL, and EADL categories (i.e., robots are not
mutually exclusive within a category or between categories). For instance, RIBA (2011) assists
people in transferring from their bed to their wheelchair or to the toilet by lifting them. Thus,
RIBA would be classified as assisting two different ADLs: ambulation and toileting. There were
many assistive devices that supported activity performance yet they did not possess the
characteristics of a robot, as defined by Sheridan (1992). For example, the Aquatec Bath Lift is
an in-tub bath lift controlled by a hand-operated joystick, yet it does not use memory or a real-
time computational apparatus to operate (Aquatec Bath Lift, 2011).
Robot assistance for ADLs. Seventy different robots were identified to support some
aspect of an activity of daily living in the home. See Table 2 for the number of robots that
support each ADL. Sixty-three of these 70 robots assisted ambulation in two different ways: (1)
reducing the need to move, or (2) supporting the physical movement. Robots such as Hawk
(2011) and TOPIO Dio (2011) reduce the need to move by bringing desired objects to the older
adult, or by performing tasks for them (e.g., fetching and delivering a drink, answering the
phone). Robotic walkers and wheelchairs, such as Carnegie Mellon University’s robotic walker
(Glover et al., 2003) and NavChair (2011), actually support the physical movement and can
assist older adults in avoiding obstacles and navigating.
Compared to the 63 robots identified that assist ambulation, a fewer number of robots
supported the other five ADLs (Table 2). Few robots were identified that assisted people with
feeding (7 robots), grooming (6 robots), bathing (4 robots), toileting (3 robots), and dressing (2
robots).
18
Table 2
The number of robots that support each ADL
ADL # of Robots that
Support
Ambulation 63
Support movement 35
Reducing need 34
Feeding 7
Grooming 6
Bathing 4
Toileting 3
Dressing 2
Table 2. Robots assisted ambulation in two ways: reducing the need to move (e.g., the robot
fetches and delivers a drink) or supporting the physical movement (e.g., robotic walker). Robots
are not mutually exclusive within or among the ADLs, IADLs, EADLs, or other activities.
Robot assistance for IADLs. Forty-two different robots were identified that support
some aspect of an IADL in the home. See Table 3 for the number of robots that support each
IADL. Over half of the robots (i.e., 53 robots) identified as providing support for IADLs assisted
with some aspect of housekeeping. In decreasing number of robot supports, 14 robots supported
meal preparation, followed by 13 robots supporting medication management. Few robots were
identified that assisted people with laundry (7 robots), shopping (5 robots), and telephone use (4
robots). No robots were identified that assist with money management and transportation. Note
that transportation involves not only physically going to a location outside the home but also
some cognitive components, such as figuring out what bus to take when.
Robot assistance for IADLs tended to be in one of two categories: multipurpose or
specialized. Multipurpose robots were created to do many things, such as fetching and
delivering objects, searching for information online, preparing a meal, and reminding of
appointments (e.g., PerMMA, 2011; uBOT-5, 2011). In contrast, other robots are more
19
specialized and only support one IADL, such as cleaning the floor (e.g., Roomba, 2011; Scooba,
2011).
Table 3
The number of robots that support each IADL
IADL # of Robots that Support
Housekeeping 53
Meal preparation 14
Medication management 13
Laundry 7
Shopping 5
Telephone use 4
Money management 0
Transportation 0
Note. Robots are not mutually exclusive within or among the ADLs, IADLs, EADLs, or other
activities.
Robot assistance for EADLs. Sixty-one different robots were identified that support
some aspect of an EADL such as hobbies (e.g., dancing, exercising), social communication (e.g.,
phoning a friend, emailing a family member), and new learning (e.g., acquiring a skill in
cooking). Table 4 shows the number of robots that support each EADL. A greater number of
robots are designed to support social communication than hobbies and new learning.
The robots supporting EADLs can be categorized into two categories: service-type and
companion-type (Broekens, Heerink, & Rosendal, 2009). Service-type robots have functions
supporting activities of daily living in addition to having social functions (e.g., Care-o-bot 3,
2011). These social functions were designed to facilitate a person’s interaction with the robot
(Broekens et al.). Companion-type robots (e.g., Paro, 2011) were created to enhance cognitive
well-being and health (Broekens et al.). Both types of socially assistive robots were shown to be
20
beneficial to older adults by increasing positive mood, decreasing feelings of loneliness,
alleviating stress, and increasing social ties (Broekens et al.).
Table 4
The number of robots that support each EADL
EADL # of Robots that Support
Social Communication 46
Hobbies 29
New Learning 16
Note. Robots are not mutually exclusive within or among the ADLs, IADLs, EADLs, or other
activities.
Robot assistance for other activities. Many robots that provide assistance for ADLs,
IADLs, and EADLs also perform other activities. Three patterns noted amongst the 147 robots
reviewed were monitoring, interfacing with technology, and using telepresence (see Table 5).
First, monitoring was implemented in nearly a quarter of the robots (37 out of 147) that
support ADLs, IADLs, and EADLs (Table 5). Monitoring involved the robot checking on a
person’s health or safety. Older adults have reported being concerned about their safety (e.g.,
burglars) and their health (e.g., falling, toxic gases; Harmo et al., 2005).
Second, 13 of the 147 robots interfaced with non-telephone technologies in the home. A
robot that supported interfacing with telephones would be categorized under that IADL (Table
3). For example, Chapit (2011) can turn off the lights or other electronic devices (e.g.,
appliances, television). Some of these robots allowed distal control of home electronics from an
internet or network connect (e.g., Chapit, 2011; Enon, 2011).
Third, 11 robots that supported ADLs, IADLs, and EADLs also used telepresence, which
allows a person to experience another location without physically being there. It has been useful
21
for many activities of daily living such as social communication (e.g., Carebot, 2011) or
shopping (e.g., TMSUK-4, 2011).
Table 5
The number of robots that monitor, interface with other technologies, and use telepresence while
assisting with ADLs, IADLs, and EADLs
Other activities # of Robots that Support
Monitoring 37
Interface with technologies 13
Telepresence 11
Note. These activities are not directly related to the activities of daily living but were identified
as trends in the capabilities of these robots. Robots are not mutually exclusive within or among
the ADLs, IADLs, EADLs, or other activities.
Patterns in Robot Assistance
From our search of currently available robots that can potentially support tasks related to
activities of daily living, we found that there was support for all the activities of daily living
except one. Aside from money management and transportation, aspects related to every ADL,
IADL, and EADL had at least one robot being designed to support that activity. Housekeeping,
ambulation, hobbies, and social communication were supported by the most robots, whereas
transportation, money management, grooming and laundry were supported by the fewest robots.
ADLs were supported by the greatest number of robots (70 robots), followed by EADLS (61
robots), and IADLs (42 robots). Other activities (i.e., monitoring, interfacing with technology,
and using telepresence) were supported by 46 robots.
Much of the current robot assistance is aimed at the more physical aspects of ADLs and
IADLs. However, there are many robots that supported cognition by reminding older adults of
previous actions (e.g., Mamoru, 2011), where objects are located (e.g., Mamoru, 2011), to take
22
medication (e.g., Pearl, 2011; Wakamuru, 2011), or of appointments (e.g., Basil, 2011; Pearl,
2011; WLMA, 2011). Support for perceptual capabilities was not a primary focus of the robots
reviewed.
There are several possible explanations as to the reason that most robots have been
developed to assist with physical aspects of the activities of daily living. For one, developers
may not see as large a market for perceptual or cognitive robot assistance as they do for physical
assistance, and as such, choose not to create robots in this area. Also, the technology may not be
available to create a robot to safely and reliably perform such tasks.
We have described the areas of activities that have support as well as identify areas with
fewer supports. For example, few robots were identified that supported bathing, telephone use,
toileting, dressing, money management, and transportation (Table 6). If robots were developed
to support those activities, older adults would likely benefit in that they might be able to maintain
their independence longer. This review has identified areas of need that are not being met by
current robot support (Tables 2-6). However, more research is needed to determine what robot
assistance older adults want or need. In addition, it is critical that the robots be tested in user
studies with older adults in the contexts in which the robots will be used.
23
Table 6
ADLs and IADLs that have the fewest robot supports
Activity Category # of Robots that Support
Bathing ADL 4
Telephone use IADL 4
Toileting ADL 3
Dressing ADL 2
Money management IADL 0
Transportation IADL 0
Note: Robots are not mutually exclusive within or among the ADLs, IADLs, EADLs, or other
activities.
Conclusions
Older adults prefer to maintain their independence and age in place (AARP, 2005). This
might be challenging for some older adults because of age-related declines in physical, cognitive,
or perceptual abilities that make activities of daily living difficult to perform. With advancing
technology, robots may have the capabilities to support older adults in these activities. The
purpose of this report was to (1) present a high level review of difficulties that older adults
experience with activities of daily living, and (2) identify robots that are currently available or
being developed to assist with activities in the home environment. Other trends in robot
development (i.e., monitoring, interfacing with other technologies, and telepresence capabilities)
were also discussed.
From our search, we identified 147 robots that assisted with some aspect of ADLs,
IADLs, and EADLs. The Appendix provides a complete list of all the robots identified that can
potentially assist older adults with ADLs, IADLs, and EADLs in the home. The greatest number
of robots were designed to assist with ambulation, housekeeping, and social communication,
whereas the fewest number of robots were found to support money management, transportation,
24
dressing, and toileting. Most of the robots assisted with physical aspects of these activities of
daily living (e.g., ambulation, housekeeping). Some assisted with cognitive aspects such as
reminding older adults to take medication (e.g., Pearl, 2011; Wakamuru, 2011) but none directly
assisted perception
Future Directions and Challenges
There are many potential opportunities for robots to support older adults in performing
activities of daily living. This search showed that there are many robots currently available or
being developed to assist with some activities of daily living (e.g., housekeeping, ambulation,
social communication) whereas other activities have few robot supports (e.g., money
management, grooming, laundry). However, research is required to determine and prioritize
what robot assistance older adults actually need to maintain their independence and what support
they are willing to accept from robots. Research exploring older adults’ needs and preferences
for robot assistance can provide direction for developers to create robots that are more likely to
be adopted by older adults.
Developing robot assistance for older adults in the home environment is not without
challenges. First, what robot assistance are older adults willing to accept? Many factors
influence a person’s acceptance and use of a robot including the robot’s function, appearance,
and social capability. For a review, see Beer, Prakash, Mitzner, and Rogers (2011).
Second, how should older adults interface with robots? Older adults reported wanting to
interface with a robot by giving it voice commands or having it preprogrammed (Ezer, 2008).
However, older adults may not realize all their options for interfacing with robots (e.g., RFID
tags, laser pointers). It will be challenging for developers and researchers to incorporate aspects
of age-related changes in abilities (e.g., physical, perceptual, cognitive), desires of the older adult
25
users, and the state of technology to produce a successful and efficient interface between humans
and robots.
Third, should robots adapt to the abilities of an individual user? Older adults experience
not only long-term age-related declines in physical, cognitive, or perceptual abilities, but also
temporary challenges. For example, an older adult who has broken a hip might need more
targeted robot assistance with certain activities of daily living (e.g., ambulating, housekeeping)
during the recovery period than before. After recovery, robot assistance can resume its usual
amount or type of assistance. A robot should be able to provide support based on the capabilities
of the user, whether temporary or long-term.
Further challenges in designing robots for older adults include addressing how older
adults can teach robots new objects and tasks, standards of safety for robots, privacy concerns,
cost versus benefit of owning a robot, methods of training older adults to use a robot, and the
feasibility for a robot to operate within the person’s home environment (e.g., maneuvering,
perceiving objects in a cluttered environment).
The present report provides the first step in understanding the needs of older adults in
conjunction with the current research and development in robotics that might assist them. Older
adults’ capabilities, limitations, and preferences must be considered throughout the design
process if personal robots are going to reach their full potential to support older adults in their
home environments.
26
References
AARP. (2005, April). Beyond 50.05 survey. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from
http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/beyond_50_05_survey.pdf
Ackerman, P. L. (2008). Knowledge and cognitive aging. In F. I. M. Craik and T. A. Salthouse
(Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (3rd ed., pp. 445-489). New York:
Psychology Press.
Administration on Aging. (2010, June). A profile of older Americans: 2009. Retrieved January
25, 2011, from
http://www.aoa.gov/aoaroot/aging_statistics/Profile/2009/docs/2009profile_508.pdf
Aquatec Bath Lift. (2011). Aquatec Bath Lift. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.clarkehealthcare.com/bathproducts/beluga_bathlifts.html
Baltes, M. M. & Lang, F. R. (1997). Everyday functioning and successful aging: The impact of
resources. Psychology and Aging, 12, 433-443.
Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding robot
acceptance (HFA-TR-1103). Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of
Psychology, Human Factors and Aging Laboratory.
Blanchard-Fields, F. (2007). Everyday problem solving and emotion: An adult developmental
perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 26-31.
Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: a
review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94-103.
BSL. (2011). Robots featuring the cybernetic brain. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.gamma-two.com/home.html
27
CareBot. (2011). Technologies. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.geckosystems.com/technologies/
Care-O-bot 3. (2011). Care-O-bot®: We create your future! Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.care-o-bot.de/english/
Cavanaugh, J. C. & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2006). Adult development and aging (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Chapit. (2011). Chapit. Retrieved March 15, 2011, http://www.raytron.co.jp/chapit/index.html
Disability and Activity Limitations. Administration on Aging. (2010, January). A Profile of older
Americans: 2009. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from
http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2009/16.aspx
Enon. (2011). Enon: An exciting nova on network. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.frontech.fujitsu.com/services/products/robot/servicerobot/
Erber, J. T. (2005). Aging and older adulthood. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ezer, N. (2008). Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in
expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robots (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest® Dissertations & Theses. (3345975.)
Fausset, C. B., Kelly, A. J., Rogers, W. A. & Fisk, A. D. (in press). Challenges to aging in place:
Understanding home maintenance difficulties. Journal Housing for the Elderly.
Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2009). Designing for older
adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Glover, J., Holstius, M., Manojlovich, M, Montgomery, K., Powers, A., Wu, J., Kiesler, S.,
Matthews, J., & Thrun, S. (2003). A robotically-augmented walker for older adults
28
(CMU-CS-03-170). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science
Department.
Harmo, P., Taipalus, T., Knuuttila, J., Vallet, J., & Halme, A. (2005). Needs and solutions -
Home automation and service robots for the elderly and disabled. Proceedings of
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005),
Edmonton, Canada.
Hawk. (2011). Hawk robot. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.drrobot.com/products_hawk.asp
Hoyer, W. J., & Verhaeghen, P. (2006). Memory aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.),
Handbook of the psychology of aging (6th ed., pp. 209-232). Burlington, MA: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Kelly, A., Fausset, C. B., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2011). Responses to home maintenance
challenges: The role of selection, optimization, and compensation in aging in place.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lawton, M. P. (1990). Aging and performance of home tasks. Human Factors, 32(5), 527-536.
Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and
instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 179-186.
Living Arrangements. Administration on Aging. (2010, January). A Profile of older Americans:
2009. Retrieved February 7, 2011, from
http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2009/6.aspx
Mamoru. (2011). Watching Recall Support Robot Mamoru. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.jsk.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/research/irt/mamoru.html
29
Mitzner, T. L., Chen, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Critical opportunities for
assisting older adults as a function of living environment (HFA-TR-1104). Atlanta, GA:
Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Psychology, Human Factors and Aging
Laboratory.
My Spoon. (2011). Meal-assistance robot: My Spoon. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.secom.co.jp/english/myspoon/index.html
Navchair. (2011). The Navchair: An assistive navigation system for wheelchairs based upon
mobile robot obstacle avoidance. Retrieved March 15, 2011, http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~johannb/navchair.htm
Newell, K. M., Vaillancourt, D. E., & Sosnoff, J. J. (2006). Aging, complexity, and motor
performance. In J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of
aging (6th ed., pp. 163-182). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press
Older Americans 2010: Key indicators of well-being (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2011, from
http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/main_site/default.aspx
Paro (2011). Paro therapeutic robot. Retrieved March 15, 2011, http://www.parorobots.com
Pearl. (2011). Nursebot project: Robotic assistants for the elderly. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nursebot/web/index.html
PerMMA. (2011). Personal Mobility & Manipulation Appliance (PerMMA). Retrieved March
15, 2011, http://www.cmu.edu/qolt/Research/projects/permma.html
RIBA. (2011). World's first robot that can lift up a human in its arms: RIBA. Retrieved March
15, 2011, http://rtc.nagoya.riken.jp/RIBA/index-e.html
Rogers, W. A., Meyer, B., Walker, N., & Fisk, A. D. (1998). Functional limitations to daily
living tasks in the aged: A focus group analysis. Human Factors, 40(1), 111-125.
30
Roomba. (2011). iRobot Roomba®. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://store.irobot.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=3334619&cp=2804605
Schieber, F. (2006). Vision and aging. In J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of aging (6th ed., pp. 129-161). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Schneider, B. A., & Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2000). Implications of perceptual deterioration for
cognitive aging research. In F. I. M. Craik and T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of
aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 155-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scooba. (2011). iRobot Scooba®. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://store.irobot.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=3334444&cp=2804605
Seidel, D., Crilly, N., Matthews, F. E., Jagger, C., Brayne, C., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Patterns
of functional loss among older people: A prospective analysis. Human Factors, 51(5),
669-680.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
TMSUK-4. (2011). History of robotic development. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.tmsuk.co.jp/english/robots.html
TOPIO Dio. (2011). TOPIO™ Dio. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.tosy.com/products/service-robot/?pid=2
uBot-5. (2011). uBot-5. Retrieved March 15, 2011, http://www-
robotics.cs.umass.edu/Robots/UBot-5
United Nations. (2010). World Aging Population 2009 (Publication No. ST/SEA/SER.A/295).
Retrieved January 25, 2011 from
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPA2009/WPA2009-report.pdf
31
Vercruyssen, M. (1997). Movement control and speed of behavior. In A. D. Fisk & W. A.
Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and the older adult (pp. 55–86). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Wakamuru. (2011). Communication robot. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/products/category/communication_robot.html
WLMA. (2011). Robots featuring the cybernetic brain. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
http://www.gamma-two.com/home.html
32
Appendix: Robot Assistance for ADLs, IADLS, and EADLs
Table A1
Robots identified that supported older adults performing ADLs, IADLS, and EADLs at home
Robot Creator
914 PC-Bot Whitebox Robotics
Active Home Quality of Life Center
Aibo Sony
AIC-AI Cookingrobot Fanxing Science & Technology Co. Ltd
AIMEC:4 (Artificially Intelligent Mechanical
Electronic Companion 4) Applied Machine Intelligence
ApriAlpha™ version 3 Toshiba
ApriAttenda™ version 2 Toshiba
Apripoko Toshiba
Aquabot Aquaproducts
ARMAR III Collaborative Research Center on Humanoid
Robots, Karlsruhe, Germany
ASIMO Honda
Assistant Robot (AR) Tokyo University’s IRT (Information &
Robotic Technology Research Institute)
AutoMower® Husqvarna (part of Electrolux?)
AVA iRobot
Bandit-II USC's Viterbi School of Engineering
Basil (Basic Service Level robot) Gamma Two Robotics
Belvedere made by a robot enthusiast for his family
BigMow® Belrobotics
CareBot GeckoSystems International
Care-O-bot® 3 Fraunhofer IPA
Cat Genie 120 Petnovations
Chapit Raytron
Charlie the Robot University of Auckland, Health Bots
project/Yujin Robots
CiCi iRobot
CMU robotic walker Carnegie Mellon University
Cody Georgia Institute of Technology, Healthcare
Robotics Lab
ConnectR iRobot
COOL Aide (Co-operative Locomotion Aide) University of Virginia
Dirt Dog iRobot
33
Dishwashing Robot Panasonic Corporation
Dolphin Supreme M4 Maytronics LTD
Domo MIT
EL-E Georgia Institute of Technology, Healthcare
Robotics Lab
EMIEW 2 (Excellent Mobility and Interactive
Existence as Workmate) Hitachi
EngKey Korea Institute of Science and Technology’s
Center for Intelligent Robotics
Enon (Exciting nova on network) Fujitsu Frontech
Family Nanny Siasun
Fatronik robotic assistant Fatronik
Femisapien WowWee
FlatThru Sanyo
FRIEND (Functional Robot arm with user-
frIENdly interface for Disabled people) Institute of Automation (IAT) at the University
of Bremen
FUSIONBOT ASORO
Gardening robot Nikolaus Correll, MIT
GENIBO Robot Dog dASA ROBOT
Giraffe Headthere
GuideCane University of Michigan
Guido Haptica Ltd., Dublin, Ireland
Handy1
Forschungsinstitut Technologie und
Behinderung der Evangelischen Stiftung
Volmarstein, Germany
HAR (Home Assistance Robot) Toyota and the University of Tokyo
Hawk Dr Robot
HERB Intel Labs in Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon
University
Hermes Institute of Measurement Science, Bundeswehr
University Munich
Hitachi walker Hitachi
HITOMI Renesas
HLPR (Home Lift, Position and
Rehabilitation) Chair National Institute of Standards and Technology
HOAP-3 Fujitsu
HRP-2 Kawada and US-American SARCOS
Huggable MIT Media Lab
Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL) Cyberdyne
iARM (intelligent Assistive Robotic
Manipulator) / Manus ARM Exact Dynamics BV, Netherlands
iCat Philips Electronics
34
iMow Toro Co.
Intelligent Wheelchair (AIST) Japan's National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
Intelligent Wheelchair (Toyota) Toyota
iRobiQ Yujin Robots
Jazz GOSTAI
Justin Robot Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics at the
Deutsches Zentrum for Luft-und Raumfahrt
Koala K-team mobile robotics
Kompai Robosoft
Kompott Robotic Agent Zurich University of the Art’s Interaction
Design lab in Switzerland
Kreepy Krauly® Prowler® 720 Pentair Water
Kreepy Krauly® Prowler® 730 Pentair Water
LawnBott Kyodo America
Litter Robot LR-II Paradise Robotics
Looj iRobot
LUCAS ASORO
Mahru-Z KIST, Korea
MAid (Mobility Aid for Elderly and Disabled
People)
Prassler, E., Scholz, J., & Fiorini, P. (2001). A
robotic wheelchair for crowded public
environments. IEEE Robot Automation
Magazine, 8(1), 38–45.
Mamoru University of Tokyo
MATS robot European Union MATS project
MIKA ASORO
Mint cleaner Evolution Robotics
MOBIL Walking & Lifting Aide
FernUniversität Hagen - Lehrstuhl
Prozeßsteuerung und Regelungstechnik PRT,
Hagen, Germany (general project leader)
Motoman SDA10 Yaskawa
MOVAID Scuola Superiore Sant' Anna, Italy
MS800 MSI
My Spoon Secom
Nao Aldebaran Robotics in France
Nao ALDEBARAN Robotics
NavChair University of Michigan
Neato XV-11 neato robotics
Nitro® SmartPool
OLIVIA ASORO
OMNI Forschungsinstitut Technologie und
Behinderung der Evangelischen Stiftung
35
Volmarstein, Germany
PAMM MIT
Panasonic hair washing robot Panasonic Corporation
Panasonic's Robotic Bed Panasonic Corporation
ParcMow® Belrobotics
Paro AIST
Pearl
University of Pittsburgh Nursing and
Rehabilitation, in cooperation with Carnegie
Mellon Computer Science and Robotics
Personal Mobility & Manipulation Appliance
(PerMMA) CMU Quality of Life Center
PLEO innvo labs lifeforms
Pool Rover Aquaproducts
PR2 (Personal Robot 2) Willow Garage
R-1300 MSI
Rampage Dirt Devil
RIBA Riken Research Center
RI-MAN RIKEN Bio-mimetic Control Research Center
RobChair Institute of Systems and Robotics, University
of Coimbra, Portugal
Roboking LG
Robomower® Friendly Robotics
ROBOTIC BUTLER ASORO
Robovie-II Advanced Telecommunications Research
Institute International (ATR)
ROLA National Chiao Tung University of Taiwan
Rolland III - Bremen Autonomous Wheelchair DFKI-Labor, Bremen, Germany
Roomba iRobot
RP2W (Remote Presence 2-Way) SuperDriod
(http://superdroidrobots.com/site/shop/)
Scooba iRobot
Scrubber60™ SmartPool
Sharioto Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Silbo Intelligent Healthcare Laboratory, Korea
Sincere Kourien Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
SmartChair
Parikh, S. P., Grassi, V., Kumar, V., &
Okamoto, J. (2004). Incorporating user inputs
in motion planning for a smart wheelchair.
Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotic Automation.
SmartPal V Yaskawa
36
Snackbot Carnegie Mellon University
SPC-101C Speecys
Taizo
General Robotix National Institute of
Advanced Industrial Science and Technology,
Japan
Tamer Karon MacLean of University of British
Columbia
Teddy Bear Fujitsu
Telenoid R1 Osaka University and the Advanced
Telecommunications Research Institute (ATR)
TMSK WL-16R3 Waseda University and TMSK
TMSUK-4 TMSUK
Topio Dio Tosy
Trilobite 2.0 Electrolux
Twendy-One Japan's Waseda University
uBOT-5 University of Massachusetts Amherst
VAHM University of Technology of Troyes,
Laboratory ISTIT/M2s, Troyes, France
VC-PL62W Samsung
Verro iRobot
Wakamaru Mitsubishi
Weston Hillman et al. at Bath Institute of Medical
Engineering, Bath, UK.
Wheelsely MIT
WheeMe DreamBots
Wilma (Wheelchair Level Mobility Assistant) Gamma Two Robotics
Yurina Japan logic machine
ZJ0405 EcoVacs
ZJ0713 EcoVacs
