Skip to Content

Wiki source code of 1. Music and Cognition

Version 2.1 by Hugo van Dijk on 2023/02/23 15:49
Show last authors
1 * . 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.
2 * Paro was evaluated more positively, whereas the Guide robot could be improved in terms of making it more simple and improving its ergonomics
3 * Hebesberger et al. [16] investigated the use of a robot as a walking group as-
4 sistant at a care site accompanying adults with advanced dementia. The robot
5 offered visual and acoustic stimulation. The findings suggested that a robot has
6 the potential to enhance motivation, group coherence, and also mood within the
7 walking group
8 * For exercise and reminiscence
9 * Music bingo
10 * Robot becomes point of discussion & conversation
11 * Used NAO robot
12 * One participant being negative towards the robot can influence the rest.
13 * Caretaker stresses that caretaker interference is needed for PwD to keep interacting with robot.
14 * Ppl had trouble following movemenents sometimes.
15 * Remenicense exercise made PwD active.
16 * One participant scared of robot when it talked after being quiet for some time.
17 * Caretaker states robot's main purpose should be conversational interaction, not exercise.
18 * Robot should have less monotonic voice.
19 * Ppl remembered robot but not the music/singing/dancing.
20 * Ppl respond more to music than engage in talking
21 * Not clear if positive effect on people's state.
22 * Potentially, inviting to dance better effect than structured exercise.
23 * Positive effect on cognitive activity.
24 * Robot itself not perse positive effect on social interaction, but music does.
25 * 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.