Hugo

Notes paper 2 week 3.2
The Design and Evaluation of a Robotic e-Partner
Engaging People with Dementia in Joint Activities
with Music
Mark A. Neerincx · Ismini Psychoula ·
Marieke M. M. Peeters · Bernd Kreynen ·
Catharine Oertel

• . Additionally, Chang et al. [11] tested the Paro robot in a nursing home in an 8-weeks trial and observed an increased willingness amongst participants to interact with the robot.
• Paro was evaluated more positively, whereas the Guide robot could be improved in terms of making it more simple and improving its ergonomics
• Hebesberger et al. [16] investigated the use of a robot as a walking group as-
  sistant at a care site accompanying adults with advanced dementia. The robot
  offered visual and acoustic stimulation. The findings suggested that a robot has
  the potential to enhance motivation, group coherence, and also mood within the
  walking group
• For exercise and reminiscence
• Music bingo
• Robot becomes point of discussion & conversation
• Used NAO robot
• One participant being negative towards the robot can influence the rest.
• Caretaker stresses that caretaker interference is needed for PwD to keep interacting with robot.
• Ppl had trouble following movemenents sometimes.
• Remenicense exercise made PwD active.
• One participant scared of robot when it talked after being quiet for some time. 
• Caretaker states robot's main purpose should be conversational interaction, not exercise. 
• Robot should have less monotonic voice.
• Ppl remembered robot but not the music/singing/dancing.
• Ppl respond more to music than engage in talking
• Not clear if positive effect on people's state.
• Potentially, inviting to dance better effect than structured exercise.
• Positive effect on cognitive activity.
• Robot itself not perse positive effect on social interaction, but music does.
• Over course of sessions, ppl interacted less with robot and more with each other. If not like robot from start --> stopped with study. Other ppl displayed continuously high interest levels.