Future Work

The current robot called MiRo has some limitations that prevent it from truly accomplishing all objectives set for it. One of the limitations of the MiRo is that it is unable to walk on floors that are either uneven, carpeted or black. A new robot prototype should be able to walk up small steps to allow the person with dementia to also walk outside. 

The robotdog should be able to connect with the caretaker if something happens were additional assistance is necessary. Therefore, the dog should have some way of contacting the caretaker, either over data roaming or wifi. The robotdog should also have a GPS so the caretaker can locate the robotdog and, more importantly, the person with dementia if they are lost or refusing to follow the dog.

When the person with dementia is on a walk, the dog should listen to a name that has been created by either the carehome or the individual person with dementia. When the dog can listen to a name, it can respond to its name like a real dog. The person with dementia could get a better bond with the robotdog if they were able to give it a name which it would respond to. Finally, if the dog listens to its name, it can stop walking and start paying attention the the user to see if it would need something from the dog. 

Currently, the robot is unable to walk a path that is not entirely hardcoded. The robot should be able to follow a predefined path and should be able to differ from that path if an obstacle is detected. 

Finally, the new version of the robot dog should allow for Snoezelen. The dog must not be too fragile so people can pet the head and body of the dog. Preferably, the skin of the dog should be soft or nice to the touch so petting it would be more preferable than petting a hard plastic dog like the MiRo. 

Snoezelen

Next to this, MiRo should not only be a guiding robot, it should also pose itself as a companion. For this, MiRo should allow for 'Snoezelen'. Clients should be able to pet MiRo on its head and body, and it should respond to that affection with happy noises and movements. This helps the client to create a bond with MiRo and it makes walks with MiRo more enjoyable. We did take Snoezelen as a secondary function into account for our Ontology, Use Cases and Claims.

However, as we were not able to test Snoezelen, our evaluation of this function is limited to a conceptual empirical setup which is described as follows. The research question (R4) would be phrased as: how do users react to Snoezelen with a moving robot? To answer this exploratory question empirically, we would embed a between-subject study design where participants would be divided into three groups: stationary, limited movement and free movement. Multiple sessions (e.g. more than three) would be preferable to mitigate the novelty effect of engaging with WAF (i.e. the MiRo) for the first time. 

In the first group, the MiRo would only make sounds and blink LEDs. In the second group, the MiRo would wag its tail and turn its head at times. In the last group, the MiRo would move in all directions, so roll forwards, backwards and side-to-side. Using the first group as a base condition, we could use metrics such as heart rate and the PwD's own experience to compare between each group and see if Snoezelen with a robot that expresses more degrees of moving freedom either overwhelms (e.g. too much stimuli caused by movement of MiRo) PwD or rather stimulates them (e.g. makes them more energetic). To allow the PwD to describe their own emotions perhaps more accurately, the AffectButton (Broekens & Brinkman, 2009)

Ethically, we would have to accommodate PwDs who are hypersensitive to certain stimuli by making sure they only participate in the base control group (i.e. the first one) or to exclude them if they are known to suffer from epileptic seizures. Naturally, this study would take on the form of a field study rather than a lab one as the discomfort of PwD can be a major factor in the outcome of the results of such an experiment.

Conclusion